Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes/Archive 1

Separate pages?

The current synopsis for episodes are pretty poorly done. They could be greatly expanded, but this would tax the length of the page more than it already is. Is there any reason to not give them individual pages, such as The Boy in the Iceberg, The Waterbending Scroll, and Siege of the North, along with their own Infobox, similar to the Simpsons infobox? If there are no nays, I can get things started. Lesoria 18:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the episode summaries to individual pages. Now they need to be cleaned up, edited, expanded, improved. Any skilled and talented takers? Lesoria 15:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It currently shows two episodes expected to air on the same day, but that cannot be right.

text edit

Although I'm greatful that someone takes the time to write these things, they're not done very well. I'll take some time to edit them and I hope some other people will do the same, atleast for the sake of grammar, spelling, and continuity. I'm starting with the most recent episodes and moving back...slowly. D4chess 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots as fair use

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the screenshots I provided for the Avatar episode pages (although possibly not all) related to a character appearing only on that episode (or in a few episodes), or to a major event of the episode. Others who've added the screenshots for later episodes seem to have followed suit nicely. (I haven't been keeping up with the pages as I'm about four or five episodes of Avatar-watching backlogged!) I don't know if I could stand to make an argument for keeping them, but to me it's about "recognition". I see a picture of a rabbit on rabbit page, and I think, "Oh yeah, that's a rabbit. Long ears, cute fluffy-ball tail." (Okay, I don't think that, but stick with me here.) When I view the The Warriors of Kyoshi page, there's a screenshot showing the warriors. I can say to myself, "Right, this is the episode with with characters in it." For The Blue Spirit, the image captures the episode in one image: the mask of the Blue Spirit character. Can these be conveyed within the page as text? Sure, although imagery might help alongside descriptions. --Lesoria 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you just said is great. If you could say that or something like that on the Lost image debate, even if it's just your impressions, it'll help demonstrate that editors do believe that screenshots identify the subject of the article (the episodes). -- Ned Scott 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Verifiability of recent additions (closed)

This is a dispute about whether or not episode information that is found solely in forum posts/personal websites meets Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, specifically targetting recent additions about episodes 12, 13, 14 and 15 that originates entirely from the forum post http://distanthorizons.proboards31.com/index.cgi?board=trash&action=display&thread=1153376556&page=1 and whether these additions are based on a reliable source. 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• As per WP:RS, a forum post is not a reliable source and thus does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiablity. This information should be removed. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• These edits that are being made are clear violations of WP:Verifiability. As was said in the edit summaries, whether the information is true or not DOES NOT MATTER. It is not verifiable, and thus cannot be on Wikipedia.--Fyre2387 02:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed per previous comments by Prototime and Fyre2387. Bulletin boards are not reliable sources. WP:RS -- Win777 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's straight from Nick.com's XML file, which I hacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.121.62 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 July 2006
  • That may be so, but as has been stated, that file no longer exists, and thus cannot be truly validated for the purposes of Wikipedia. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And if it is something that has to "hacked," it is not a reliable published source. -- Win777 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor should we feel safe putting it up as it could get us in trouble. Consider what would happen if I hacked JK Rowling's computer and posted the next book's name and summary on the internet. I'd be in jail. So unless it is PUBLISHED, we should not use it H2P 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with everyone else. The information has been taken down from most of the places that it was posted BECAUSE it was obtained illegally. There's no way we should then turn around and put it up on Wikipedia. Raceberry 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Because community consensus has been reached concerning this issue, yet a user keeps adding the information back to this page (and cannot be effectively blocked for violating 3RR due to have multiple IP addresses, which has already been attempted), I have requested this page be semi-protected (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes .28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, I have a question. Is any info on the show real, when it has yet to be told in an episode? Can we really believe that there even is an episode called "City of Walls and Secrets"? I dont think anyone has heard about that episode, form any other place then the internet. So, how can we just point at somehting, and say that might not be true? It could turn to be false, the part of "Serpants pass", but still, not one can say yes or no to it. THats alll I got to say. ~Sayasha

Oh look, Sayasha is back. We'll worry about that later. It might be posted somewhere. Currently, the issue has increased way beyond that one episode. It's also currently almost 4 in the morning. You are more than welcome to helping revert some vadalism coming about from these other people. H2P 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since community consensus has been reached, it's safe to say that the point of this RfC (Request for Comment) has fulfilled it's purpose, and as such I am closing this matter on the corresponding Wikipedia RfC page. –Prototime ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Proto, any idea where the information Sayasha is talking about came from so we can make her happy and prevent more waring? H2P 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are sources that state the existence of the Secret of the Fire Nation episodes (and those sources are referenced on the corresponding episode pages), but as for City of Walls and Secrets, I've actually never seen any reference for the information that the episode exists (it's listed on TV.com, but that in itself shouldn't be enough). However, this episode has been listed on Wikipedia since almost as early as when Book 2 started airing, and has never been removed. Perhaps we should tag the episode page for not citing its references and open up a discussion as to where the information on this episode has come from, and then propose it for deletion if no sources are identified. –Prototime ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and tagged the episode page for not citing any references. For further discussion on this, be sure to see the article's talk page. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow...you hacked into stuff on nick.com?

Serpents Pass

Ok, dont delete it! The Co-Creatures of Avatar stated this episode title! Check TurboNick Avatar Storyboard for evidance. ~Sayasha

Ugh...you did the page move wrong, you should have used the move function instead of copy-pasting, since a move keeps the page history. Not really a big deal, although I'm not sure of the methods for corecting it, have to get somebody to look in to that...

Also, did he say Path or Pass? Its a little hard to make out in the clip.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's pass. I guess we solved the riddle of what came first, the bison arrow or the nomad arrow. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have conformation about the titles being The Serpant's Pass and The Drill from Animation Insider who previewed the show already. This e-mail conformation is on the WikiProject page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so my spelling is bad. Back off of that please. And Yes, he did say surpants pass. And, uh.. Oh, yes. Id idnt move it, my friend did under my account. I dont even know how to, lol. ~Sayasha

Future episodes

Just as a note (and yes, this surprised me, too) these future episodes that have been getting added do have an actual source, specifically: http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1125&document=2 This one isn't info from "teh l33t hacks", its an actual published source.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya, it does say that it is offical info from Nick. So it does count, I would believe. (Oh, btw, New Avatar on my B-Day! Lucky me!) ~Sayasha

The Fury of Aang/Secret of the Fire Nation

Considering that The Library and The Desert were aired together originally and advertised as "The Fury of Aang" and Serpent's Pass and The Drill are being aired together as "Secret of the Fire Nation" can the table be updated in such a fashion as to reflect this? 56.0.143.25 18:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why...in every real sense, both "movies" are just two episodes. A note on the episodes’ articles is enough.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with User:56.0.143.25 on this one. I was searching for "Secret of the Fire Nation" and only found out which episodes were referred to by that name because of this comment on the talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are often more useful than the articles themselves because they have less arbitrary rules governing them.

Episodes 216-220

Episodes 217 and 218 are on Tv.com. All were found at Nick.com by altering URLs and not hacking. Though I really cant give an offical source for Appa's Lost Days, a longer Nick October Highlights should come out soon which should feature Appa's Lost Days and other new episodes. I did NOT get Appa's Lost Days from IMBD.

Humm...I'm not really sure if Nick.com material that is not supposed to be revieled can count as a source, since its not really "published". It MIGHT even be borderline illegal to include that content…I’d like to see what other think before doing anything, though.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the illegal thing. Nick.com was VERY upset when hacked pictures were made for SotFN and the two new episodes after it. I can't find the article where they express this but if I find it later I'll present it. I think we should do exactly what we did last time, keep the information off the page until a credible source presents it. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, ok. But this time it wasn't hacking. Some people at Distant Horizon altered URLs to get to the next couple of episodes. But Tv.com does have Lake Longai and The Earth King up and I think it would be weird just skipping Appa's Lost Days. -Dylan0513

We can't use Tv.com as a source since people can add their own information. I actually think it was TV.com that had the article about Nick disowning the leaked information. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, people can suggest to add stuff at Tv.com, but it's the editors choice who in this case is Pooldude, wheather to put it on or not. Pooldude got the information for Lake Longai and The Earth King from someone who works on avatar. Tv.com is one of the most reliable sources out there. -Dylan513

You still need a source. That's the problem with TV.com. Anyone can pull anything out of thier ass, and call it fact without anyone checking up on it. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS}} 22:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the editor still has to approve of it. I see what you guys mean, but I'm pretty sure Tv.com's avatar page has never been wrong. They've gotten City of Walls and Secrets right when others said it was Secret of Ba Sing Se and they got Blind Bandit when others said it was Earthbending tournament. I'll be sure to post another source for these episodes when it comes up. -Dylan0513

Appa's Lost days is now on the Comcast TV schedule. Check if you have Comcast. It will be on TVGuide tommorow, I'll post a link then. I added the date and the summary. Dylan0513 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Appa's Lost Days is up at TvGuide.com! Go here [1] change the date to the 13th, time to 8:00 and find Nick. Dylan0513 01:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is Magicalboy getting the dates of October 20 for Lake Laogai and November for Earth King? Unless I missed something in a day, it was never announced. -Dylan0513 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lake Laogai information up. Source Comcast schedule again. I don't know how or where the other people got it from. -Dylan0513 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That online anywhere? Not 100% required, I believe, but a link would defiantly be nice.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Comcast isn't that smart. It'll be on Tvguide.com tommorow. -Dylan0513 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Laogai is up on TV Guide now, but Earth King's still not listed. Blech. Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure they'll skip a week after Lake Laogai for Halloween stuff and show the Earth King sometime in Novmeber. -Dylan0513 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the future…as I think about it, Comcast’s schedule can’t be cited as a source, because only Comcast subscribers can see it. Sites like TV Guide .com, though, well known journalistic outlets, are perfect.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Though Comcast is only hours ahead of Tvguide.com and they're both exactly the same so I'll put it up when it's on Comcast and people who don't have it can see it about 5 hours later on Tvguide.com. -Dylan0513 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Comcast Schedule and the Tvguide schedule tommorow, there will be no new Avatar on Friday October the 27th. This means The Earth King will probably premier on the first or second week of November and the season finale the final week of November of the first week of December. -Dylan0513 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added episode 39, The Guru. This episode is just like The Earth King, came from Tv.com, other than that unconfirmed. But after Appa's Lost Days is makes a lot of sense. Again, I state that Tv.com has never been wrong with future Avatar episodes. -Dylan0513 15:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...which means nothing. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Then my source is Tv.com again which is not like wikipedia and users can change anything. It has to be editor approved which im thiscase is Pooldude. If I can't use Tv.com then once dongbufeng.net (Pooldude's website) puts it up then it'll be that. This episode is no different than The Earth King which will hopefully be confirmed next week, so if you take one down, you take obth down. -Dylan0513 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Who exactly is Pooldude? He have any sort of credentials anywhere, or is he just "some guy"?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess technically he is just some guy just like the rest of us. But he knows someone who works on Avatar which is where I assume he is getting The Guru (he got The Earth King from him.) -Dylan0513 16:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, as strange as Lake Laogai not showing on it's scheduled date, it just got stranger. Now there is no new avatar scheduled on the Nick.com TV schedule for October 27th or November 3rd. We may have to wait 3 weeks for the next episode. -Dylan0513 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deviation from the normal airing pattern

Again, according to Nick.com's schedule: [2], Lake Laogai tommorow will be replaced with an Avatar marathon of The Drill, City of Walls and Secrets, Tales of Ba Sing Se, and Appa's Lost Days. If this is true, Lako Laogai will almost definitly air on the 27th of October. Nick's pulling a fast one on us again! -Dylan0513 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again I vote we store Nick studios, steal the co-creators, and hand them over to Cartoon Network.

Yeah, like CN would do any better. I actually like this. 2 episodes in concecutive weeks then take a week off and build up hype for the season finale 2 parter or not. -Dylan0513 03:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I'd just settle for Nick getting a halfway decent website. Like, without overuse of Flash (so you can actually link to things) and less annoying sound effects. Have to see what happens on this one, seeing as, with Nickelodeon, you never really know what‘s going to air until it does. :P--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps at all, TV.com says that the new episode is going to air tonight.--TriPredRavage 20:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I just heard the commercial on Nick. It airs tonight. -D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

you wish! i just did research on the nick website and they arnt saying anything! this sucks! so far th new ep isnt coming out today ;.; MetalBladeX4 00:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What the heck?! This article says it airs on a Saturday! What the heck? -D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 00:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read you would see that Tv.com is wrong for once and that TvGuide's dates are messed up! -Dylan0513 01:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is as much Tv.com and TvGuide.com then as it is Nickelodeon. Nick did not even fill in an episode summary for their Friday night 8:00 slot until today (if I am correct). It is quite likely that it was originally intended to be released tonight but was not. It is highly unlikely that it is scheduled to air tomorrow at any time. -User:Whitlockite 21:55, 20 October 2006

No, Nick changed it a day or two before the episode came on and everyone was wrong. It was on their schedule and these idiots should check all their sources before continuisly editing something. -Dylan0513 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

More likely aspect is that they will air lake laogai on the 3rd of november and push everything else back. There was probably some processing error and they had to go back and fix something in the episode. User:Purpender 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not on the 27th. I think it's a holloween marathon. Keyblade Mage 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Everyone stop saying on the article the episode will be on the third. You don't know that, its entirely speculative, and you can't claim it as fact in the article without a source.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Nick schedule website, both Lake Laogai and The Earth King will premire on Saturday, November 4 at 11am. (Shousetsuka 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but you notice the schedule is behind an hour so it hasn't showed the 8:00 slot on Friday yet. Anything could be there. -Dylan0513 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

11 AM? I sincerely doubt Nickelodeon would air new episodes then. More than likely, that was originally to be a rerun and the schedule just wasn’t updated properly when they changed things. I really think we should leave all the future episodes as TBA until we have some clearer information, since it seems fairly clear this was last-minute change.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the Nick.com schedule, BOTH Lake Laogai and the Earth King are scheduled to air on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 11am EST. It's kinda weird on how Nick is deciding on how to air these, but anyway we now have an updated shedule for reference. --Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There’s no way that can be right...I have a feeling those were supposed to be reruns, before they started screwing with things. 11 AM...that's just obviously wrong.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it seems we're back where we started, nick has fixed its shedulae a little bit, and now on November 3, the Earth King will air, but no word on the airing date of Lake Laogai. --Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IMBD Episodes

Episodes 216 to 220 are on IMDB. Some of these entries are suspicious, however.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0794679/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799575/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0827263/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831941/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822878/
--choi9999 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...IMDB is well known to be entirely untrustworthy in this regard. I see they have removed some of the worst, but the editorial process they use is a joke. Just about anything can get on.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention it kinda conflicts with the episode list we currently have, and these have already been disputed over. Then again Tv.com isn't exactly the prime resource for these episodes either. Whydoit 05:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You also have to take into consideration IMBD's past with episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Before City of Walls and Secrets was released, IMBD used to say that an episode called "Seventy-Three Wives" was supposed to come out concerning Aang finding out about the earth king having seventy-three wives, including one of them being June (the bountyhunter from Bato of the Water Tribe). This episode was supposed to be the episode which is now City of Secrets and Walls... Most of IMBD's list of episodes seem to be at a much more advanced level than a kid's show on Nickelodeon and with very disturbing issues even. User:Whitlockite 17:10, 28 September 2006

It appears someone went ahead and created articles for the suspected episodes listed in IMDB, anyone know about this? Whydoit 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I checked Tv guide and Verizon's tv listings, it put's "Appa's lost days for the 13th of October as the next episode, therefore "Aang's Calling" is false information as I have two reliable sources behind this I'm removing that and editing in the date. Whydoit 02:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I will also be removing the other episodes listed on IMDB for now since neither TV Guide or Verizon's listings confirm them. Whydoit 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, I might have deleted something else that was also proven, if so, my bad. Just trying to keep the article based on more reliable sources. Whydoit 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tv Specials

I don't really think that the Behind the Scenes and the Legend so Far (even though I got a screenshot for it) belong with the episodes. There are more other than those two. Maybe we should create a section just for the Avatar Tv Specials and take them out of the episodes. Dylan0513 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur. --choi9999 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

revert scuffles re: airing dates

Look, it has to be said -- the constant reverting back and forth regarding the broadcast dates of "Lake Laogai" et al. just plain silly -- and I'm saying silly because it's kinder than saying stupid. I understand why people are doing it -- why don't we all come up with some kind of agreement on how we should handle upcoming broadcast dates? What acceptable sources are regarding broadcast dates (e.g. not Tv.com), what exactly we should say (e.g. TBA, Q4), etc --Choi9999 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's…exactly what we've been saying, basically. The problem right now, as is said on the talk pages I and several others have been asking everyone to look at, is that no one really knows when these episodes will air. Nick's schedule has been updated several times with information that makes absolutely no sense. I've yet to see one person on a talk page anywhere say why that info should be used: they just keep reverting and ignoring requests to see talk pages.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the Nick.com shedule is updated again and this time it's for real. It has Lake Laogai on the 3rd at 8 with the episodes at 11 and 11:30 on the 4th corrected/ I still think we wait a little to make sure the Earth King will come out on the 10th. -Dylan0513 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be safe, at this point, to use Nick's date for Lake Laogai, since that one at least makes sense. If noting else, it might end the edit warring. Earth King should still be left as TBA, though.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

According to CableTvtalk.com, [3] (Bottom of the page), Lake Laogai on the 3rd, The Earth King on the 17th, and the two-part season finale on the 1st of December. Wheather this can be counted as a source or not it up to you guys, but it should be up on the November highlights shortly. -Dylan0513 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also coming from pooldude's site: dongbugeng.net [[4]]. He also writes that a contact at Nick informs him Lake Laogai is a "can't miss episode." Only 10 days to go! -Dylan0513 20:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Layout Change

It occurred to me that, as this list is now, the airdates are the only way someone can tell if an episode has been aired or not. That should, in my opinion, be clearer. I think I have a solution. I propose we change the article’s layout to the way it is in this example I’ve created in my userspace. Some notes:

• Unaired episodes are meant to be moved to the appropriate season after they air.
• The Unaired section only needs to be divided into seasons if episodes are announced from more than one season.
• Although most unaired episodes won’t have images (at least, not legal ones) available, I’ve left the picture field in to make moving the entries easy.
• This removes the need to mark unaired episodes’ airdates as scheduled individually, since the field is labled that way at the top of the table.

So, what’s everybody think?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot. It definitly removes a lot of confusion and makes it a little easier too. -Dylan0513 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the 4th part. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reception seems good, so I've gone ahead and done it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like is that it's called unaired episodes. It makes it seem like they were cancelled or something. It should be like episodes not aired yet, or something to that manner. -Dylan0513 00:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Genius! Oh. Hmm. Call them 'Future Episodes'. 202.72.187.152 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking either that or "Upcoming Episodes". Only potential problem with future is that somebody might think its actually set in the future.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, future is confusing too. Hmm... -Dylan0513 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are the column sizes between Book 1 and Book 2 different? I'm staring at the code and just not seeing it. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Set widths for all but one column, which becomes the "flexible" column, in the table headers. That should fix it. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they are. The codes between seasons are identicle so I don't see the problem. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed them. [5] -- Ned Scott 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Well, I've got Firefox 2 now and it has a spell check built in. So I'm going around and fixing spelling and some language within the Avatar episodes. That's why you'll be seeing so many "Language and Spelling" edits by me. -Dylan0513 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't depend too much on it though, sometimes there will be a common typo of a word that it also a completely different one, be careful. --Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 01:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird

There's going to be a new Avatar episode called Lake Laogai scheduled to air and they said that you can watch the first 2 minutes of this episode at Turbonick. However, i ended up going to Turbonick and ended up seeing the entire episode. That was weird. A episode to air on Turbonick. I don't understand but i guess it's worth it.

From what's been going around, it seems that episode was released early on Turbonick by mistake. Its been removed, now.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

behind the scenes

the behind the scenes link goes to a canadian tv show. is that right? --skuj

Page Deletions

I can at least kind of understand why Crossroads of Destiny was deleted, but why was the Guru?! It had 3 good sources! Now I'm just going to have to make both pages again in 6 days when the Comcast schedule has it up. Thanks a lot. -Dylan0513 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it did not have three good sources, and had three invalid ones. TV.com and Pooldude's site we've been over about a million times, and Cabletv talk is a message board. WP:RS specifically rules them out as sources. That one isn't even debatable. Maybe they will have to be remade, but the fact of the matter is, they never should have been made at all without valid sources. Guru used the same sources Crossroads did. I may have proposed it for deletion, but an admin would not have deleted it if they didn't agree.

And just for the record, when we get there...I really don't think Comcast Cable's on-screen guide can be cited as a source, either.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but again, it is Tv Guide listings and will be on their website after Comcast in a matter of hours. -Dylan0513 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, so articles can just be made when the information is available on TvGuide's site.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is when I'll be asleep. Plus Avatar's TvGuide is messed up now so it might not be up at all. Does that mean we can't use TvGuide as a source? -Dylan0513 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dylan I'm sure one of us will be up to add the info. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also...its not exactly critical the articles be up the second they appear.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You should jsut put them both back up. Just watch when the guide comes out they will both be there and you will look like a fool becasue everyone said that they won't be the episodes. THis is the same thing that happened with The Earth King -Not Loged In User- NOvember 12 16:16 EST

Uh, not it's not. The Earth King was left up even though Tv.com wasn't a valid source. I'm starting to think Wiki shouldn't have future Avatar episodes because of all this confusion. -Dylan0513 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not confusion, it's information to people who want to be informed. Like me and all of my friends who love this site for putting future episodes. They put future episodes of alot of other shows so why stop with Avatar?-Not Loged In User- NOvember 12 18:50 EST

Because there's all this editing and work created for people. I say we definitely stop putting these up unless future episodes are on a Tv Schedule such as TvGuide's, or Nick's or until Nick releases a highlight of programming for the month in the future. That being said, nothing from Tv.com anymore. To confusing and according to Wiki, not a valid source. This brings up a future episode of pooldude apparently having or going to have episode names for season 3. He said he will release them gradually over the break between seasons 2 and 3. According to what I just said, we shouldn't have them here. There's going to be a lot of reverting for us. -Dylan0513 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information: the two episodes are now properly sourced, thanks to TVGuide.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

19 and 20

I think upcoming episodes are The Conspirator and The Failure. Both will air on December 1 2006. Just see the below link. Looks like a good trustable source. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831941/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.4.195 (talk • contribs)

OMG! First, just think about it. Would an Avatar episode be named the failure? IMDB IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR AVATAR EPISODES!!! -Dylan0513 11:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that imdb also described an episode with the Earth King being a polygamist. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they had an episode called "76 Wives" or something like that. One time, just to test their so-called editorial oversight, I tried submitting an episode named "Blah" as episode 42 of season 3. A week later they put it it up.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, they must of taken it down soon since I didn't see it. And the episode was called "Seventy-Three Wives" XD. -Dylan0513 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

19 and 20 confirmed as The Guru and The Crossroads of Destiny from TvGuide.com [6]. Summaries up too. They look to be interesting episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan0513 (talk • contribs)

The Guru

On this page, it states that "The Guru" will air on November 24. But on the actual page, it states that it will air on December 1. Which one is it? Raven23 23:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it will air on November 24th--Derek Jeter Fan 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guru will air on December the 1st. Whoever is editing ti needs to stop. -Dylan0513 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

color of earth???

What color should the word earth be. I was hoping to nominate this for featured list and taht would mean that a consensus would be needed for the color. On the templete it is a shade of green, and here it is brown, which is better? Cnriaczoy42 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely brown. I'll go look at the template now. -Dylan0513 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Green, because brown comes out too red or just non colored at all. Brown is not part of the earth kingdoms colors which are yellow and green. When Book 3 goes up all you would see would be Blue, Brown, Red and the brown won't be distiguishable. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ill say green since it is the color used most in the show to represent earth NekrosKoma 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep it brown because earthbenders can only bend stuff like rocks, metal & earth-like materials not green stuff like flowers & plants..

• I've never seen the show but if they have a standard color that represents earth, then that should be the choice. Wikipedia shouldn't come up with it's own symbolism. Jay32183 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only do most earthbenders wear green, but in the opening, their nation is represented with the color green. Cnriaczoy42 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Original Pilot

Do you think that the original pilot should have its own page with a synopsis?

It should, but unfortunately, I don't think most people have seen it. -Dylan0513 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what the other episodes with their own pages are for.

Man that would really screw up a few templates. I can write it if I get a chance. Someone give me a page name where we would put it. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 16:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would mess up the episode template. I guess there could just be another catagory for other. As for the page now, Avatar pilot or something like that. -Dylan0513 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunetly, it was suggested in the FLC that this be added to the article because it is mentioned but not put in. It could always be put in as episode 0 at the top of Book 1 with the reminder that this isn't part of the continuity. If someone could PLEASE make that article for me because i don't have the DVD I would EXTREMLY apreciate that. Cnriaczoy42 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have time to view the episode? I'm sure this wouldn't kill the article's chances, but it is at the top of the list with a red link. Cnriaczoy42 03:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A single redlink won't stop an FLC, although some one may request that a stub be made. Jay32183 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can slap up a stub easily enough, though I've never seen it (don't have the DVD) so it'd only be a placeholder-type deal until somebody could expand it and/or point me at a link with info on it. What I would need to know, though, is the episode's name.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find a real title then Pilot (Avatar: The Last Airbender) is an appropriate name. It would parallel Pilot (House). Jay32183 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the good news and the bad news. Good news is, I do have the pilot included with my Book 1 collection. The bad news is that it is completely in commentary. I can still understand everything that is happening, but really they should have put a commentary and no commentary option. As for the title there is none. Damn I can't hear a think on this video. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a rather stubish article, not much but its a start. I would say, though, that I don;t really think we need to put it on the template. It would ruin the formatting, and its really not necessary.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Third "Book" as Fire?

Most logically, the next "book" of the series should be Fire, because if the series goes in the order of the seasons(Water-winter, Earth-spring,) then Fire would be next, as summer, then air as fall. If this is true, then Aang will face Ozai in the third book. Also an interesting fact to ponder- Kuzon(see minor secondary characters for more info). Aang mentions him in "The Blue Spirit" and the Avatar directors mentions he shall have a significant role in future episodes, perhaps as significant that he shall be join Aang and the gang(Katara and Sokka of the Water Tribe join Aang in Book One:Water, Toph in Book 2: earth, and perhaps Kuzon in the Book: Fire. Despite the fact Kuzon and Aang's friendship was created a century ago, it is possible that,like Aang he used a way to preserve his body for all these years, or he is already a character in the show as an old man.

The 3rd book is confirmed as fire and will go up either when the season 2 finale airs of when the first episode of season 3 airs. -Dylan0513 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, we know book three is Fire. Probably be best, though, to hold of on including it in lists or templates until we know one or more of the episodes. Having a whole section of the list say nothing but "TBA" just isn't necessary.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Another possible thing would be, that the trader Iroh joins the Friends and teaches Aang Fire. Zoko traded him, he is searched by fire Nation and he's a firebending master. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.55.181.23 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

WP:COPYVIO?

Since It was suggested that the article summaries be cleaned up, does taking the summary from nick count as COPYVIO or not? If so then I will work to write good summaries. Cnriaczoy42 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm almost positive that it's not a copyright violation. The summaries are to inform people about the upcoming episodes. They're not to be touched for now. -Dylan0513 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

the only things that are problems are summary length, missing the pilot episode and refrences, beyond that the article is good to go. Getting it nominated has already improved the opening text, and if we all work on improving this article, i'm sure that it will passed. Cnriaczoy42 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, there probobly are copyright issues. I mean, this IS text taken directly from other webpages. Besides which, the wording in many of them is idiotic (it gets a little tiresome having to fix every one so it says "Iroh" instead of "Uncle"). I really don't see why we should be locked in to word-for-word copies.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If the summaries came from another web site then they are indeed a copyvio. They should all be written from scratch. However, it is ok to say "only include info that we can verify with official sources", etc, which is something seen on List of Lost episodes. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just below the [Save page] button are the words:

Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.

Unless the Nickelodeon site explicitly puts its text into public domain (ha!) then lifting the episode guide is as straightforward a copyvio as you will find. Just because Nickelodeon write the summaries to "inform people about the upcoming episodes" and display them for free on their web site, doesn't mean they forfeit their copyright (which is an automatic right). This is not an issue that requires consensus like some formatting opinion. If the FL candidacy has any hope, you all need to quickly come to an agreement on how best to write and reliably source the edit summaries, and get on with producing a fair amount of original text. Colin°^Talk 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Summaries

does anyone mind if I make the text a summary of the episode and not a teaser? The other featured T.V. show lists give summaries have more than teasers and if this article has the potenial to become a featured list, then why can't I work it towards that. Besides this the only other thing it is lacking is refrences. once those are up this will pass with flying colors. Why is it such a bad thing to put up these summaries? Cnriaczoy42 03:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely not be more than two sentences because then i t defies the point. I'm gonig to take them off again becuase you need to talk before adding! Get opinions from H2P and Fyre first! -Dylan0513 11:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at this and this,and the category above this one. I'm not the only one who thinks that this is a copyvio. These have to be dealt with. Those aren't even summaries, they are teasers that Nickelodeon uses to get people to watch the episodes. Again I ask why do we need to stick to Nick's summaries? Look at the other featured lists that are about tv shows, they provide informtion about the episode that is more than a teaser. So why can't this article? and by the Fyre2387 aggred with me in the section above here. Cnriaczoy42 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't want spoilers on the episode lists. That defeats the purpose of the list. The problem with summaries is many times they are spoilers. I don't mind if we work with the text on these episodes but you need to get a concensus before making such a drastic change to a page. I'll admit that I don't know copyright laws very well, but I just think the page would look better with official summaries. "Surely there are some episode guides around the net that can be used?" What if we try using TV Guide.com and then playing with those a bit (because the Bitter Work one sucks). But at the same time: "Yes. The most recently promoted list of episodes had one paragraph summaries of each episodes plot. If the current text was copied from somewhere else then it definitely needs to be rewritten, potential copyright issue." So what I suggest is we take the TV Guide episode details (which, I'm pretty sure, are within public domain given citation) and then modify them a bit but still avoiding spoilers. The Nick one's we are using are very much teaser and less plot detail.
So basically, my main concern with changing them is that I still want them to be somewhat professional/official while not spoiling anything. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The text on the TV Guide does ot appear to be public domain, unless I missed that bit in their terms. You can't take copyright texts and just "modify them a bit" to escape plagiarism. TV Guide Terms:

Proprietary Rights of TV Guide.

TV Guide owns and retains all proprietary rights in the tvguide.com website and all content and services offered on or in connection with TV Guide or tvguide. com. tvguide.com contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information including text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound. TV Guide owns the copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content, as well as in all content original to it. Each third party content provider owns the copyright in content original to it. Except for that information which is in the public domain or for which you have been given written permission by TV Guide or the copyright owner, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit the content of tvguide.com or any portion thereof.

Re: spoilers & purpose. Are you writing an encyclopedia, a TV guide or a fan site? Colin°^Talk 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, they really give no leave way. Well then I guess we will just have to rewrite them ourselves while making it look professional. We still should still keep the details to the point that we don't spoil the entire episode as we don't actually have a spoiler tag at the top of the page (and really we shouldn't want one). Hell if you look at the list of simpsons episodes, already a featured list, there aren't any actual plot details given. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, lets all keep this civil, shall we? Now then, H2P is quite right in pointing out that major plot spoilers are not required in this sort of list. As he noted, List of The Simpsons episodes, a featured list, contains none. What I suggest is we work out summaries that, while not "teasers" per se (ie, not including things like "how will Aang escape this time" or so forth), but also are not major plot spoilers. It seems to be to be an workable compromise in this situation.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IF you're including summaries then you include spoilers. List of The Simpsons episodes contains no summaries whatsoever. You aren't allowed to go out of your way not to spoil the plot because Wikipedia is not censored. Jay32183 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiling a show is far from keeping it uncensored. This is simply a list as each show has it's own page with full details. There is no reason to give the beginning, middle, and end of each episode in this list, it simply needs a small description of the plot not the plot conclusion. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the link? It tells you specifically to do the exact opposite of what you suggest. Jay32183 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Making "spoiler free" parallel versions (content forks) of an article.
• Deleting relevant, neutral and verifiable information about a narrative work from Wikipedia "because it's a spoiler" instead of properly applying spoiler templates

As of the first one, we did not make a parallel non spoiled version, we simply just don't put spoilers at all. As per the second one, the spoiler information of these episodes is NOT relevant to this page. This page is a list for the episodes there by we are only providing a short plot summary, one which we don't even need to have in order to meet FA status. If you want the entire plot synopsis, including the ending and every other detail about it, then you should go to that episodes page. The second rule that you are citing above has no bearing on an episode list because we are not narrating anything, we are just providing a list. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are not narraring anything, then why don't we delete all the episode summaries and just have this list become a picture gallery? Cnriaczoy42 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you delete all the episode summaries then you'll have to remove the images as they would no longer be illustrating a significant section of text and would fail FUC#8. Jay32183 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true you shouldn't "dance around spoilers", but you do bring up a good point. It is ok to say, we're only going to go into so much detail on the list, then the rest of the episode summary is on the episode article. So it has the same results as not including spoilers, but is for a different reason, the level of detailed included on the list. I haven't seen the show in a while, so I don't know if these would actually work. Some spoilers would probably still be included on a basic level of summary, but it's better than nothing. I guess you could also make the argument that plot summary isn't article content, but who knows what kind of debate that might cause. -- Ned Scott 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One editor had expanded the summaries and was reverted to a copyvio version, which is the main problem. Jay32183 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to change the summaries if we don't want copyright violation. THIS LIST IS A FEATURE CANDIDATE, BUT ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS HOLDING BACK IS THE POSSIBLE COPYVIO. We NEED to change the stuff at least a little to avoid this. Y BCZ 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this a Copyright violation? The summaries aren't even on Nick's page anymore (I think). And even if they are, so what? They're meant to be public and certainly aren't copyrighted. -Dylan0513 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And let's say they are. Anyone can put anything on the future episodes and we can't do anything!!! -Dylan0513 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we'll rewrite these, put put them here first!!! Please no spoilers! Then people can't see what epsiode is coming up without looking at other episode spoilers! -Dylan0513 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(un-indenting) OK, look. Let's everybody loose the "my way or the highway" attitude, k? Keep that and we'll just be dancing around this issue without ever reaching a conclusion. I'm going to suggest a few things:

• First off, all parties stop reverting the article to be "their way" until we reach some kind of consensus. Edit wars are a bad thing, period.
• Everybody take a deep breath. This is about cooperation, not competition. Our goal should be to have an article that works and doesn't have any major, reasonable objections, not getting it absolutely how we want it. Everybody needs to be willing to compromise a little. That's just the nature of working with other people.
• Now, I'll try to sum up the various possibilities for how to handle the situation, and pros and cons of each:

1)Leave the list the way it was before.

• Pros:No work to be done, has been functional for quite a while.
• Cons:Most of that is likely copyright violations. (I'm not actually sure if they ALL are, some of the older ones might not be.)

2)Write detailed summaries, roughly a paragraph long, of each episode's entire plot.

• Pros:Very informative, gives a reader a healthy supply of information.
• Cons:Necessitates the inclusion of spoilers, which may be unwanted.

3)Create new, original summaries, but don’t include spoilers.

• Pros:Solves copyright problem without much change to how the list works.
• Cons:Going out of the way to not include spoilers may not be in keeping with Wikipedia policies/guidelines.

4)Remove plot descriptions of any kind from the list.

• Pros:Removes the problems.
• Cons:Would force major changes to the lists layout, make the list less informative, and could force the removal of the images.

If I’ve missed anything, feel free to elaborate.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited up to Jet, I have to get to work now. Currently those episodes I edited have NO spoilers, NO copyvio, and give enough of a plot summary to allow anyone to know what happens in the episode without knowing every bit and detail. I'd edit the rest of them but I have to go to work. Figure out what's going on and I'll hear the result tonight. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely either 1 or 3. Spoilers at all would be bad, period. A lot of people come here to see upcoming episodes and may have not seen the last one. The episode would be ruined for them! -Dylan0513 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As for myself, I'm more than willing to go with descriptions like the ones H2P recently created, more or less in line with option number three, above. I'd also be able to live with four if it comes down to it, but I'd really rather it didn't.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think four is the worst. It defies a lot of the pourpose of the list! -Dylan0513 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I would prefer 2, I will choose choice 3 because it removes the current problems and ads a little more detail than what we have now, and it is the way we we can reach a consesnus, once these are all done, I will move some of these summaries to the article pages because they have the same copyvio problem also. Now that we all agree on what to do, let's make this a featured list!! Cnriaczoy42 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can adequately summarize an episode without spoiling certain things then go ahead. Although you aren't supposed to go out of your way to avoid spoilers you also don't have to go out of your way to include them. My original request at FLC was for paragraph form detail, and I assume at least a few episode can have a paragraph without spoiling the plot. The main issue with dealing with spoilers is to first write a good summary, and if it happens to include a spoiler add the warning tag. Spoiling plots is not a Featured List requirement, but good writing is. The single sentence method is usually considered bad writing because there would be no flow. Jay32183 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The following policy (for lack of a better word) work for everybody, then? If so, I’ll stick it up on top of the talk page.

That work for everybody?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Typically you wouldn't want to put that kind of limitation on the list, that should be an agreement among editors not a rule. Agreeing on a format and putting up the generic spoiler tag is probably the best way to go. Jay32183 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree about agreement (heh). I mainly just wanted a succinct way to communicate an agreement without everyone having to wade though several page's worth of discussion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's important to realize that I only came into this discussion because of the FLC, I'm not an editor of this list and I have never watched the show. IF you want an example to help get this page promoted I think I should point you to List of The Sopranos episodes as it was the most recently promoted list of episodes. It was also the only one promoted after the big explosion of the fair use debate. I hope this is helpful. Jay32183 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I'd like some opinions on what to do about the article's references. Many such lists use TV.com, but, unfortunately, the editor there for Avatar regularly adds future episodes based only on a "source" from Nickelodeon that he doesn't name or give any further information about. It IS good for airdates and what-not of past ones, though. Would it be possible to use it as a source, you think, but only for info on already-aired episodes?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what would we be referencing? One voter asked for references and that makes no sense. I understand it for the future episodes but their references are listed on that episode's page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You only need to post a general reference for the list, so that anyone can verify titles and airdates. TV.com should be fine if you don't go into details about future episodes. Jay32183 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like Avatarspirit on there, but it's ok. Just don't complain about Tv.com there and not complain about avatarspirit. They're wrong like twice more than pooldude is. And again I state that pooldude is the most reliable source out there other than maybe nick. -Dylan0513 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know AvatarSpirit isn't great, I'd not trust them for future episodes, either. It was just the first source for the previous episodes I thought of. Anyway, I was thinking about what to do with future episodes, and it seems to me TV.com can be a source for them, so long as it has independent verification (ie, not just another site copy/pasting what TV.com says). Make sense to everybody?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, maybe pooldude's site http://dongbufeng.net/ which has an episode guide in addition to Tv.com? -Dylan0513 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit over the line. Avatarspirit has helped us multiple times in the past. I don't see why there is a huge discussion on the topic really. We need a "source" that proves that we didn't just put them in our own little order. Anything will do. I doubt we need more than 3 though. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(un-indenting) Actually, Pooldude's site is exactly something that would NOT work. By independent, I mean something totally separate from TV.com, not just another site where the same guy puts the same information. If the actual source is the same, there's little point in verifying it. But this isn't a major concern right, seeing as we shouldn't be seeing new epiosodes for a bit, so we've got time to work on it. The list is sourced fine for now.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)