Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Redundancy

I noticed that this list has been a featured article, so I'm not really sure how to work this out. I've noticed that there is duplicate information on Wikipedia between this article and articles detailing the three seasons. My suggestion would be to stick with the three different season articles, because they would allow the greatest flexibility. That would mean that this article should be deleted. What does everyone else think?

Links:

• List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_episodes
• Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_(Season_1)
• Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_(Season_2)
• Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_(Season_3)

Nazarenenut (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are supposed to go more into detail. This one gives a basic summary that is marignaly spoilerfree. The others are suppoed to go into more detail. For example, when season 3 is over, there will be info about the erattic aring scedule. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with TPE yet again. It's better that we have four seperate pages so that way we have the basic stuff for the actual List of Episode (All 3 seasons) and then the seperate season pages so they can go into more detail. I think that's probably the best thing for it. Gamloverks (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue with "The Boiling Rock"

Although these episodes did not "air", the info regarding them is 100% true. So... I can understand moving them to "Upcoming Episodes", but deleting the info? The info is accurate, it's obtained legally (unless anyone claims a leak is illegal???) so why was it deleted? --Dcelasun (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The DVD is not supposed to be out before May 6. Therefore, we have chossen to wait until then. The fact is, the DVD was NOT supposed to be out yet, so it can be considered illegal cause Viacom can sue for an early realease and we need to keep out of anything that might be illegal. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact was, the reviews there in fact DID spoil it. For one, it included the twist that would leave "Azula none too happy with her two friends" which would cause someone to think that they did something either against Azula or For the Heroes. For now, until at the very least the DVD is released on May 6th, lets not put any information out in the section until then. Also, I believe that the dates for the episode releases or for TV and not DVD correct? I know it hasn't aired on TV yet, but shouldn't we keep it to the correct broadcasting schedule and not mix the two? Gamloverks (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think the airdate for Boiling Rock pts 1 and 2 should just be changed back to april 25. The episode is out there, and has been watched. So it has already aired. And it not being legal or illegal, or officially airing with the DVD should make the date may 5. That's just stupid. It's out, so it aired. It got out on the 25th of april, so it aired on that date! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.118.158 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

THe fact is, no one is SUPPOSED to have viewed the episode till May 6. Video stores get it early, and they aren't supposed to allow it to be taken out yet. Viacom could take action for having the episode released early, so we don't want to get involved. BEtter for us to wait until it is legal, since we don't want to support illegal activites. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and further, even if it wasn't potentially illegal, it is still not an official release. As I have said before, this is not a race people. Have some patience, it will be put up, but when it was supposed to be put out, not before. Derekloffin (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of the DVD coming out first, the template has been changed to "Original Release Date" so that the dvd date can be used.Rau's Speak Page 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this isn't a race. I also agree with the template to be changed to Original Release Date, nice move. Gamloverks (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank the ip who thought of it. Rau's Speak Page 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

i find this change of tune, oddly appealing. and how quickly people change, hmmm... putting episode names early. what happened to having a legit source? hmmm... makes u think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.89.34 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a legit source for 312 and 313. There was not for 314 and 315. Relax, the summaries will be added on May 6. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 12:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why we should wait until the official DVD release to complete this article, the two boiling rock episodes have already aired in canada, and plenty of people have already seen them (including myself), so there's no false information there.., this just makes wikipedia inacurate, since it's not "upcoming eposodes", it's "episodes that haven't made it to DVD yet", and info should be here for whomever wants to read it; sure, it's a spoiler, but what are you doing reading an episode's description if you don't want to get spoiled? HuGo_87 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they HAVEN'T aired in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter. The episodes seen were apparently from a pre-mature DVD rental, which technically makes it illegal. Accurate or not, releasing info of material that is not officially available is not allowed. Derekloffin (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a bit of problem with "release" date. it should remain as air date to prevent confusion. most episodes of TV programs air on TV. for whatever reason these will not air first one TV does not make the fact TV programs air on TV non-existant. something can be added to the episodes that premiere on DVD before broadcast to say such. otherwise i think all other espidoes should be listed by DVD release date and not air date. it would be confusing to people trying to figure it out in this article when they do not know why these episodes "aired" in such a manner, or every other episode was relased one at a time. bad form Nick for creating such a mess for everyone to have to deal with. shadzar-talk 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What we could do is utilize the template's parameter for an alternate air date. We could change the column back to "Original Air Date", and just have a separate "Original Release Date". (In fact, we only have to put the column in for the third season.) — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Having "Original Airdate" and "Original Release date" columns is odd. For the most part it would list the same date for the entire page with the exception of two episodes. I find that unnecessary. Rau's Speak Page 17:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. We could just do it normally and leave the air date for the air date column and the DVD release date for the DVD release column (in the separate DVD section near the bottom of the article). — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But what would we do about Boiling Rock? I ran all of this though my head when I decided to folow the ip's idea and change the column to release date. I also do not see how its confusing, it says release at the top, not air. Rau's Speak Page 20:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just tell me this: Why does it say release at the top? Other than the air date, the only other release date their is would be the DVD release, and the DVD release has its own section at the bottom of the article. Why mix things up for the reader (who is most likely expecting air dates), and try to combine everything when it could exist nicely separately. Just change the column header back to air date, put the air dates in the episode table, and put the DVD releases in the DVD section. There is really no point to purposely change the whole table just because one or two episodes came out on DVD before they aired on TV. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But what then would we do about Boiling Rock? Would it remain in the upcoming episodes section until July? They way it is now is unobtrusive and reflects that the episodes came out before the DVD. Rau's Speak Page 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the way it is now is confusing. There is absolutely no information or note saying that the episodes will air after they are released on DVD. Furthermore, as User:Shadzar said, listing "Original Release Date" instead of "Original Air Date" can throw the reader off. This is a list of episodes for the Avatar: The Last Airbender television series, not the Avatar: The Last Airbender DVD series. And what about The Boiling Rock? Technically, the episode is considered an upcoming episode until it airs, so it would remain their until July. The only place that a DVD release date would be important in a TV series article would be in the DVD section. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine. Change it to what you want. You obviously have your mind made up about this. Rau's Speak Page 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I made that point earlier that it was better for it to stay true to the TV release. What we could do is make a note off to the side that says something along the lines of "These epiosdes were released on DVD before being aired on Television." Or something to that effect. We should probably keep cool about it anyway, and something to keep in mind about the erratic airing schedule would be waiting for the actual SUMMER'S END to air it. You know what I mean? Nick is coordinating the Show with the weather. Which is causing some problems, but sometimes you have to roll with the punches. Gamloverks (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Erotic airing schedule?" I really, really hope you mean "erratic." 199.8.47.12 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that, sorry, I was in a hurry and wrote the wrong word. Gamloverks (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting an old discussion

In order to improve the quality of the episode descriptions on this page, a compromise was reached. The summaries of each episode may contain some spoilers. However, information, "spoiler" or otherwise, should only be included if needed to adequately describe the plot of an episode. See this discussion, where the compromise was achieved, or feel free to start a new discussion.

Forgive me for opening up this old discussion, but since many of the editors who were here to make this decision have left, I feel that it is time to review it. (Note: In the linked discussion, I am Cnriaczoy42) In reality, having an article for each of the three seasons does not add much that could not be done in this article alone. Wikipedia is not supposed to censor things or create spoiler free content forks, which is basically what having the three season articles is doing right now. Is there any logical reason (that is based on wikipedia rules and not what the fans want) to have both this and the set of season articles? The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that this kind of adding more than necessary pages than what we could merge into the article. I do believe that it can be kind of tedious to go to separate season pages, however, I do believe it is better so that way we can go into more of the plot of the season for each Book and explain it more throughly than what we do in the List of Episodes. I feel that it is necessary as long as the summaries are the same from the list of episodes. Or we could make separate tabs in the List of episodes and insert the stuff from the season articles for the List of Episodes making it much more easier to find. Personally, I think that one is a better idea. Gamloverks (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest focusing on the three season articles and deleting this current article. I really don't see a reason for having this giant list of episodes when there are articles for individual seasons. It's fairly confusing. Nazarenenut (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it the other way around, we should have this article but not the season articles. Since a bit of info would be repeated in all three, it makes sense to combine them into one. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There would, however, be information pertinent to each season that would make one page too long. I'm not a fan of long pages. Having three season pages would allow for more depth to each season (not just the episodes). It would also make it easier to differentiate between seasons and other media (super-deformed shorts, movies, etc.) Nazarenenut (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is no way we can delete this page. It is already FA and there is no need. The main point for the season articles is so there is a place for information on the season itself. For example, I recently added a reception section to the season one article. Some of the reviews I used were specifically for season one. Other examples would be special guests, cast deaths, etc. I think if we spent time on the articles, we would be able to find a lot to add. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. Gamloverks (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I too agree. The season articles are still being built, albeit slowly. And reception information belongs nowhere but there. The season articles also allow us to go in depth with the erratic release schedule of season 3, which we cannot do here. Rau's Speak Page 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, because on a list of episodes page, we can't exactly go into detail about that season, hence, the season pages stay in along with the List of episodes. This way, the Season pages will be for more depth on the actual specific season and we can just keep the links in the list of episodes if people want to know more about that season. So I believe that we keep things the same. Anyone disagree? Gamloverks (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Western Air Temple Airs July 14th?

I didn't want to put in because of everything going on with "airdates" so I'm not going to do anything until it's approved. Avatarspirit.net is listing that The Western Air Temple air date will indeed be July 14th. Should we seperate the air dates for Canada And US or note in the article that these episodes aired first in Canada. Or would this be tedious? Or is Avatarspirit.net even a reliable source? Gamloverks (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened was, for a day, Nick had a message on there site saying that avatar would return on July 14. Then the next day, they removed it. Avatarspirit is using that date, even though we can't because it is not 100% confirmed. For one day, we had that as the date, but then we had to remove it when nick unconfirmed it. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that Nick removed it, but that doesn't mean they unconfirmed it did they? Shouldn't we at least note in the article that certain episodes aired in Canada before the US? Gamloverks (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they removed it means it might not be the real date. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So we know that it will air sometime in July because of the NYCC video. Should I assume it's not a good idea to seperate USA and Canada Airdates? Gamloverks (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is reserved for the season 3 article, which is why the exisist. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I kind of figured that would be something that would be talked about there. Okay. My questions are answered then. I will not change anything. Gamloverks (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Sozin's Comet really the finale title?

My problem with using this is that it relies on two sources, The tvguide.com editors blog, and the Finale book. Neither of these, in my opinion, are valid sources. Why can't it be "Into the Inferno"? That was the NYCC title (Into the Inferno: Nickelodeon's Avatar: The Last Airbender Finale) and is the title of the season 3 video game. The tvguide blog fails to list any where as a possible source and I'm sure that Nick has kept the episode titles quiet for a reason. Why else would they withold what the back of the DVD looked like to tvshowsondvd.com? The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with TPE. The blog fails to list a source for their claim, not to mention that the site is probably not a very reliable source for information that Nick is attempting to keep secret. Even if there is some shred of evidence that might make the source reliable, the source is still questionable, and should be removed. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral at the moment, but one thing, how does tvshowondvd.com matter? I can't find the back for any of the dvd releases on there. Am I missing something? Derekloffin (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they showed the back of the dvd case on their site, then it would have the names of the final four episodes. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't show the back for any of the dvds, not just this one (at least I couldn't find any backs), so I don't see how that is relevant. Either way, just to reiterate, I really don't care. If it does get removed, make sure to put a note up that the blog is not considered sufficient (not that that seems to stop anyone, but at least we can easily revert without an argument). Derekloffin (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They show the backs of the cases eventually, go and check the posts. They have been updated. The only reason I brought this up at all was because of the fact the other seemed to die in favor of using the titles. I am for their removal. Rau's Speak Page 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found it finally. Thanks for clarifying where this was being seen. Derekloffin (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Raiders

Okay, so we can't use Sozin's Comet for the finale, but then why we do use The Southern Raiders for the title about Sokka and Katara learning more about their mom? That isn't even sourced at all! Gamloverks (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That info came from NYCC im 95% sure. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was there at the panel and Bryan said the southern raiders was when Katara and sokka learn about their mom. Oh, and TSR doesn't air on the 14 of July, that would be TWAT.--Wikialexdx (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no source for either episode's US airdate. If there is, please provide it. Rau's Speak Page 03:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But then why do we source it that way? Can't we at least link to the NYCC page or something? Gamloverks (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Source what what way? You mean online? It doesn't have to be online. A verifiable published medium is more than acceptable. Rau's Speak Page 04:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any confirmation that southern raiders will come out in July 2008 at all?? --Fotte (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the series finale will air in July and the final DVD will be released in July. Southern Raiders must air before the finale, chronological order and all that. And if no episodes air in July, the DVD has it on it. Rau's Speak Page 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Fotte (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that "Southern raiders" aired on 17th july?--Fotte (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on that time machine, but I'll get right on it as soon as it's finished... (and in case you missed it, we're still in June, July is next month). Derekloffin (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :D i got carried away with execitement :D i misinterpreted july as june in my mind :P--Fotte (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the source. Here's a direct shot of the announcement. And here is a shot of the full spread. Rau's Speak Page 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Something Else

Something else that has been bugging me. Why is it that the episode, "The Southern Raiders" is showing a July 14th air date, if I recall correctly, that's for the Western Air Temple, not The Southern Raiders. Gamloverks (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're right. The reference says new episodes, but in the US, new episodes wouldn't start with southern raiders. Derekloffin (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the 4part finale is supposed to air on July 18--Wikialexdx (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The source says different. Rau's Speak Page 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

According to what I've seen and heard, July 14th will be the Western Air Temple, 15th will be the firebending masters, 16th will be The Boiling Rock (I'm assuming both parts.), 17th will be The Southern Raiders, 18th will be The Ember Island Players, and the 19th will be the 2 Hour avatar finale (whatever the episode names will be...), did nick mag name a name for the finale episodes or no? Gamloverks (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Nick Magazine kept us in the dark as to what the Finale shall be called. I found the picture, it is shown on TV.com's forum under the name "Nick Magazine (Finale Airdate)" the Nick Magazine blue is a link to the pic. Gamloverks (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The title to the finale has been released at nick.com's TurboNick (their video section)! They are calling the final movie "Sozin's Comet". [[1]]. Go all the way to the right to the Featured section, then wait a few seconds for the Avatar icon to pop in. Click on it and read. You will eventually see the title! :)--Freespirit1981 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that would be good enough for the title with it on turbonick and all. I want to wait and see what some of the other editors say and we'll come to a consensus. Gamloverks (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. That is more than reliable. Plus you found it, I think you should add it. Rau's Speak Page 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Better link. Rau's Speak Page 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that takes care of that then. Gamloverks (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't mind, I went ahead and changed it to "Sozin's Comet, Part 1, 2, 3, 4" citing turbonick as the source, once again here's the link [2] AmericanAtl (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, since I cannot do so right now, could you change the links to actual citations (using {{Cite web}}) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add Cite web templates to them. Rau's Speak Page 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That should settle it. Sorry for the multiple edits, tried to do {{Cite web}}. Didn't work too well...AmericanAtl (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Try adding a temporary {{reflist}}, and then previewing your edits. That should help to prevent multiple edits. Rau's Speak Page 23:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

is confirmed the titles of each part of the finale? (someone added them)I don't see it at the turbonick link, until we get an "official source" it should not be there yet --Verdad1963 (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

never mind, is official

we got the image of the DVD4 backcover

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Avatar-Airbender-Season-3-Volume-4/9933 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdad1963 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the mentions. Mainly because I do not trust the source. The DVD has not been released and they somehow have the front and back covers, not to mention 3D shots. They do not mention any source, so I do not want to take any chances. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The poster of the reference is David Lambert, who has also posted this same data on every other Avatar DVD release and to my knowledge never inaccurately. I believe he actually works for them. He also listed his source as Paramount. At this point, I think it is a bit on the excessively paranoid side to exclude him. Derekloffin (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Derekloffin; if it was just his word, I would be hesitant, but he has the image, that is official to me --Verdad1963 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the pic seems to be floating significantly enough for this not to be questionable (though I am still a bit concerned). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think we are close enough to the point where it doesn't matter. If we are wrong, no one will know until it airs or we have another source and we can change it before too many notice. If we are right, whoohoo. Rau's Speak Page 03:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Book 4?

How can there be a Book 4? As I recall, the 4 part season finale is also supposed to be the series finale. Ghost01 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no book four, if you see book four on the page, remove it, it's not true. Rau's Speak Page 21:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres no 4th book, Avatar is a trilogy --Wikialexdx (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Countdown to the Comet Schedule

This is the correct schedule for The Countdown to the Comet Week:

• Monday July 14, 2008 @ 8/7c:
• Book 3 Chapter 12: The Western Air Temple

• Tuesday July 15, 2008 @ 8/7c:
• Book 3 Chapter 13 The Firebending Masters

• Wednesday July 16, 2008 @ 8/7c:
• Book 3 Chapter 14 The Boiling Rock, Part 1

• Wednesday July 16, 2008 @ 8:30/7:30c:
• Book 3 Chapter 15 The Boiling Rock, Part 2

• Thursday July 17, 2008 @ 8/7c:
• Book 3 Chapter 16 The Southern Raiders

• Friday July 18, 2008 @ 8/7c:
• Book 3 Chapter 17 The Ember Island Players

• Saturday July 19, 2008 @ 8/7c:
• Book 3 Chapter 18 Sozin’s Comet, Part 1: The Phoenix King

• Saturday July 19, 2008 @ 8:30/7:30c:
• Book 3 Chapter 18 Sozin’s Comet, Part 2: The Old Masters

• Saturday July 19, 2008 @ 9/8c:
• Book 3 Chapter 20 Sozin’s Comet, Part 3: Into the Inferno

• Saturday July 19, 2008 @ 9:30/8:30c:
• Book 3 Chapter 21 Sozin’s Comet, Part 4: Avatar Aang

--Wikialexdx (talk)19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay... So what? Rau's Speak Page 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well showing both episodes of the Boiling Rock at the same time doesn't particularly surprise me given some of the stupidities that Nick has done promoting the series. Naraht (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops a mistake, but someone added the wrong dates for TSR and TEIP, and it gets annoying--Wikialexdx (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It does get annoying. But there really isn't anything we can do about it. Other than continually add the correct dates. Rau's Speak Page 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Just so everybody knows, the page has been semi-protected for vandalism for two weeks, which should give us a break on the vandalism. Now we need to make sure the dates are correct, so we can keep them that way. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They're right. But only two weeks? Why not until it's over? Rau's Speak Page 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. For that you'd have to question the admin who protected the article. When you think about it, there is only a five day gap between the time the protection stops and the season finale. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 11:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when has that stopped them. People were adding April 25th for Boiling rock for weeks after the episode came out on the 6th. But at least we get some kind of a break from reverting. Rau's Speak Page 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I had to do the same for the Pau Gasol page, when they see it's protected they back off, as I have not had to worry about much vandalism since. Gamloverks (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ill protect it till it airs. Sorry ive been away, dont plan on using me much before August 13 The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Raiders

"Katara decides to confront the fire nation soldier who killed her mother, and plans to kill him by using bloodbending she learned from Hamma." Can someone source this sentence? The TV Guide site says the following: "Katara decides to confront the Fire Nation soldier responsible for her mother's death." However, nothing about bloodbending is in here. Also, is the TV Guide site a valid source? --24.154.235.141 (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just left over from before the protection. I'll match it up with the TVGuide one. Rau's Speak Page 04:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured List

Has the criteria changed for a featured list? Because the version of the article now is much better than when promoted. Now and then. I mean, we have DVD information, specials, more sources, nice tables, production codes. The lead IS shorter, but that can be easily rectified. As for the color tables, I don't see why that hurts it. Other than those two, the only problem seems to be using AvatarSpirit, which can also be fixed. Thoughts? Rau's Speak Page 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To start, the lead is horrendous. Just because it is a list does not mean it is exempt from WP:LEAD. The lead needs to summarize the article, and so far it only mentions the season names and the series premiere date. Moving on down the list I think I can say the actual summaries need some rewording, not too much, though. Further down, the whole Online Downloads section is unreferenced. Finally, the DVD section is horrible. There is absolutely no reason to include the episode names on each DVD. That was what kept Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) from becoming GA. As in that example, only the number of episodes and discs (as well as release dates, etc.) is sufficient. And, as you said Rau J, the AvatarSpirit thing is questionable. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I said it needed improvement, but all you said didn't answer the question. Did the criteria change. The article is definitely better than when promoted. Rau's Speak Page 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm not really sure exactly how this article was promoted. I ran into the same thing with the main Avatar article. I think its just the expectations of the community have gone to a higher standard over time. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Soo... are you with me on getting it back to FL? Rau's Speak Page 14:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But of course. I'll see what I can do. Just remember I am also working on Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) (GAN coming up soon) as well as the whole merger between the nation articles (not to mention we have to do something about the main Avatar article). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're in the middle of something, I won't interupt. Just stop by every now and then to make sure I don't screw up too badly, which I seem to be doing a lot lately. Rau's Speak Page 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just redid the DVD Release section. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed. That's gonna get some attention though. Similar to your edits to Earth Kingdom. Rau's Speak Page 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats the hardest part about editing these articles. There are so many passionate Avatar fans that make sure this article stays the way it is. Fortunately, we always seem to convince them in the end, since policy and consensus is on our side. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 17:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Fyre, whom I always considered a level headed user. He did bring up some good points though. And thanks for fixing the colors, I never thought to use HTML. Rau's Speak Page 18:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to help as much as I can if needed. (Truth is, I'm gone the next two days for Orientation at IU, so good luck!). Gamloverks (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorts and Specials

Do we really need the Shorts or Specials section. Both are not really important with regards to the show itself, and seem to be just taking up space in the article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Been wonderin` that myself. The specials are only recaps and behind the scenes which you generally don't see in a list of episodes, as they aren't really episodes. Could the recaps and the shorts be placed in the lead? I see no reason for mention of the "behind the scenes" special to be mentioned. Rau's Speak Page 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well...the lead should not mention anything not mentioned in the article. What I was thinking is we could just reduce the two sections into a paragraph or two of prose that can fit nicely in the article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need more than one. There isn't a lot of information in those sections. Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the overview section? Rau's Speak Page 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would do fine since it's not a lot of information. Gamloverks (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Releases

Should we mark the specific episodes for those that were released on DVD and now TV airings of the episodes? Gamloverks (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why... The sections are called "Original Release Date," that means the date the episode was first released. And if we include TV airings, whose do we add? The first time they were aired? I dunno, I just don't like it. Rau's Speak Page 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Summaries

User:Sceptre was bold and removed the episode summaries following the mold of Lost, The Simpsons and Doctor Who. While they are all FL's, one of the reasons for removal of FL status was because the summaries were too short. I have reverted this good faith edit, and brought it to the talk page to see what others think. Rau's Speak Page 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers.

I was wondering how spoilers should be handled. Particularly, episode conclusions. Now, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not censored. It does contain spoilers. But how far do we go? I know that we don't give a play-by-play, but I think that the ends of the episodes should be included. Rau's Speak Page 00:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This page was meant for basic outlines while the specific season pages were meant for page by page sumaries. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But what does that include? Only a teaser, or the opening, middle, and end? Rau's Speak Page 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unique Page For Each Episode

Whatever happened to each episode having it's own page on Wikipedia, like each of Family Guy's episodes?--Foljiny (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merged into a list for each season. Rau's Speak Page 17:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? I liked it better when each episode had it's own page.--Foljiny (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Because policy here says every page needs to meet notability criteria, in particular that means all pages needs 3rd party sources to reference, and most episodes don't have that. Derekloffin (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Family Guy episodes don't have that either.--Foljiny (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably true, but that simply means the policy police haven't gotten them in their target sights yet. Derekloffin (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

the hypocrasy of wikipedia, oh joy 24.184.206.83 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Avatar episodes like The Puppetmaster, The Drill, Lake Laogai, and Tales of Ba Sing Se have all received multiple awards, memorials of Mako, etc. They all pass notability for an article; its just that they were previously structured to be sent to AfD. Sozin's Comet was written the way it should be, and I think the episodes mentioned above pass notability as well. They just need to be written correctly. --haha169 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FL

A new version of this list is currently under construction at my Sandbox. Please contribute there. Rau's Speak Page 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the bolded lead, many lists don't use it (WP:LEAD is talking about articles not lists), but it's fine unless someone in the FL reviewer has an issue with it. As for the "Sales overview" paragraph, are there any objections to removing it? It is unsourced, doesn't concern real episodes, and is poorly written. Thoughts? Blackngold29 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks better, but more info on the shorts would certainly help. Blackngold29 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Like what? Plot? I guess we could add a few sentences summing them up. And for the lead, it's supposed to summarize the list in the opening statement, which it does. I don't think the bold is necessary, but WP:LIST says we should at least sum it up. Rau's Speak Page 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It says there were "three animated shorts and two recap episodes. The shorts were done in a super deformed style." That's it. What were the shorts? Short stories with the regular characters? I honestly don't know, I haven't seen them. Blackngold29 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you should, look em up on YouTube. They are hilarious. But, okay. I'll summarize them. Rau's Speak Page 03:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think taking out the episode descriptions is a colossally bad idea that makes the page all but completely useless, but if that's what's the popular kids are doing, I guess it must be right. Resistance is futile, right?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The page does exactly what it's title suggests. It gives a list of episodes. The summaries are on the season articles, which go in depth into each season. That includes the summaries. Rau's Speak Page 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Its information with no context. With only titles of the epsiodes, this pages tells you nothing about the significance of what its saying. You have to look at another page for it to be at all meaningful. Personally, I just think that's a bad thing. Maybe that means I disagree with whoever is pulling the strings these days, but that's life, I guess.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazing work, you guys. This list is finally looking more and more like a Featured List. One problem though: Why is the second half of Season 2's table larger per unit than the rest? For example, "Lake Laogai" is in a larger box than the one directly after it, "The Awakening." --haha169 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Line breaks. I made it so that the episode titles all appeared on one line. I just thought it looked better. Rau's Speak Page 20:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm complaining about the uniformity, but you do what you want. If there is any wiki-coding out there that I don't understand, its wiki-tables. I used a computer to transfer my Excel document into a table, and it still turned out a mess...I messed with it for a full day. Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. It still looks unsatisfactory... :P Enough rambling... --haha169 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your earthquake one looks fine to me. Blackngold29 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the table is very basic compared to other lists, especially this. Secondly, it looked like this and this once. --haha169 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Season Article class

About a week ago, another editor said that the season articles were lists, on impulse I reclassified them as such. But thinking about it, they do much more than just list the episodes. I don't think that they are lists. Thoughts? Rau's Speak Page 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lost (season 1) and the rest of it's seasons include the same info as this and they are classified as lists. Blackngold29 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The only real "prose" (and my definition of prose is something that cannot be stated in a list) is the reception section. The "production" section is nothing but a list of the people that worked on the show...meaning that it should really be titled "Crew" or "Cast and crew" (since there is often cast members listed there as well). Notice the difference between the amount of prose at Smallville (season 1) and the season pages for Airbender. The only thing that is a list is the episodes, and that's more for organizational purposes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting link

A Malaysian Newspaper, The Star, recently interviewed DiMartino and Konietzko. They said that it takes about "10 months to produce just one Avatar episode from “story pitch to final sound and music mix". Could be added to the lead, or just the main article? --haha169 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be added to the production sections on the season articles. Rau's Speak Page 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be good info to have. Do you have a link or more specific info about it (date, title of article)? Blackngold29 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Omg. I can't believe I forgot to post the link. One sec, lemme find it. --haha169 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: [3] --haha169 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topic

I think that if we can bring this back to FL, Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) up to GA, and either Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) or Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) up to FA, then we can get a featured topic on this subject! A Very interesting prospect indeed: Current Status:

• List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
• Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

Required Status:

• List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
• or Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New Analysis:
After studying the articles a bit more, I think the following would be much easier to achieve:

• List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
• Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle --haha169 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The season pages are lists, not articles. They should not be GA. They could be FL though, and I don't think that being FL disqualifies something for featured topic status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Featured Star is used at Featured Topics to denote Featured Lists as well. --haha169 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We need twenty percent of them to be featured class and at least two. The others can be GA. But since lists are either featured or non, they only need to have a peer review and have the problems fixed. Rau's Speak Page 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. We've reached the milestone with Sozin's Comet, so that can be put last priority. If we can get it to FA, that'd be amazing - but we need to get those lists to FLC soon. In my opinion, I doubt the current peer review will get any attention at all. Why not just close it and ship it to FLC, where we'll get more useful constructive criticism?--haha169 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Season 2 table

From "The Library" onwards in the Season 2 table, each row becomes large and essentially "fatter" than the rest of the table. I found that the problem is because the "Episode #" Column couldn't fit the extra numeral, so it spaced downwards.

However, the same problem is in the Season 3 list, but each row is still thin and uniformed. Could someone fix this? --haha169 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just your screen, mate. Looks fine to me. The numbers are even on the same row. But let me try something, let me know if it fixes your problem. Rau's Speak Page 22:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How bout now? Rau's Speak Page 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good now. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Goes by Dos Santos as far as I can tell

I looked up pages for the Avatar and Joaquim and Santos. A good number of them including interviews have Dos Santos instead. In addition, the Wikipedia page for him is with Dos. See Joaquim Dos Santos.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We removed it for coding reasons. Rau's Speak Page 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Coding doesn't matter, his name's his name. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And his name is still there, if there is a policy for this, by all means, I'll personally fix it. Otherwise, I see no problem. *SIGN* 03:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the policy for Wikipedia to provide factual information? His name is Joaquim Dos Santos, not Joaquim Santos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan0513 (talk • contribs)

Ummm thats his name too. *SIGN* 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

His last name is Dos Santos. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooo. See, I thought that was a middle name. I'll fix it. *SIGN* 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod Code

What is the source for the production codes in the season articles? *SIGN* 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have trouble finding one. There's nothing in the end credits saying the production number of the episode and there's really nothing saying they're used officially except the times the creators have used them. In my opinion, they don't need a source because the format for the production codes are simply season number followed by episode number in that season. It's more of a technical thing than something that really needs to be sourced. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured that too, but I've also seen it as S01E01, 01x01, S1E1 and a bunch of variations of that. I figure with calling the seasons and episodes Books and Chapters it could also be B1C1, B01C01, or more variations of that. This is why I figure it needs to be sourced, or left out. *SIGN* 02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about sourcing one commentary where the creators use that format? -Dylan0513 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats perfect! Which DVD? *SIGN* 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I'll try and find one. When I do I'll post which one here and we can see how to format it. -Dylan0513 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just listening to some of the commentary during sozin's comet: phoenix king, they are often referring to various episodes as "3 oh 9", "2 oh 9", etc. That good enough of a reference? Derekloffin (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, thats great. Can't be formated, but can definitely be referenced. *SIGN* 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List vs. Article?

Yes, JBK405, of course you are right, these are all articles, even the stand alone lists. I was in a rush, and picked poor language.

It nonetheless stands, however, that the article's current form is not in conformance with WP:LIST. Here is the relevant section:

Lead sections in stand-alone lists
Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:

• If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
• If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."

Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.

Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification.

Let's analyze this. a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. Well, briefly is a pretty subjective term. I sure don't think that what's in the current edit is brief by any stretch of the imagination. But you might, and you're entitled to your opinion. But then the guideline goes on to explain what is meant by briefly describing what the list is about. It says, In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. The same idea is presented in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists: Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. This tells us that the purpose of our lead section is to tell us how we derived the list; we don't need a narrative or a grand description. But when we include the following:

• there are people who are able to manipulate, or "bend", one of the elements.
• The Avatar is a being able to manipulate all four of the elements.
• The series follows Aang, the most recent airbending incarnation of The Avatar, who is released from an iceberg by Katara and Sokka of the Water Tribe.
• he sets out to master the other three elements and end the war that has ravaged the world.
• [he seeks] bending masters to teach him their respective arts. His masters ultimately join him in his quest.
• the series also focuses on Zuko, crown prince of the Fire Nation; the nation that started the war.
• [Zuko's] story initially sees him as an antagonist trying to capture Aang, but ultimately sees him regain his honor by helping Aang learn firebending and end the war.

we are not explaining what the criterion are for inclusion in the list—we are providing information that should be (and I'm sure is) in the main article on the series. It doesn't need to be and is not supposed to be here.

Frankly, a list's heading should be as brief as possible, out of courtesy to the reader, who (if given an overly long text in the heading of the list) now has to try to guess whether or not he needs to go and read the regular article. If the list's lead section is very spartan, and he wants to learn about the topic, he can now quickly go to the topic's main article and learn about it. But if the lead section of the list is lengthy, he may well spend more time reading the list than necessary, and then may still have to go back to the article, where he will have to read some of that stuff again. Waste of time.

Quite frankly, I would be perfectly content with a lead that was no more than this:

Avatar: The Last Airbender is a 61-episode Emmy award-winning American animated television series written and created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko. It aired from February, 2005 to July, 2008.

But I am willing to recognize that the Airbender devotee may think it's critical for the reader to know about some terminology (the book and chapter thing) and to know about the episodes that did not follow the pattern. So I see it as evolving this way:

Avatar: The Last Airbender is a 61-episode Emmy award-winning American animated television series written and created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko. It aired from February, 2005 to July, 2008. The Avatar franchise refers to each season as a book, each named for one of the elements that the protagonist must master: Water, Earth, and Fire. Each episode is known as a chapter. The show's first two "books" each consisted of 20 "chapters"; the third book had 21. In addition to the three books, there were two recap episodes; the first recap summarized the first eighteen episodes while the second summarized season two. Additionally, there were three self-parodies produced. The first self-parody was released via an online flash game. The second and third were released with the Complete Second Season Box Set DVD. The entire series has been released on region one DVD, but only the first season has been released for region two.

Now this is way, way, more than I think is necessary. But I recognize that an argument can be made for inclusion of all of the above, and I respect that. But all that content about what happens within the episodes appears to me to be absolutely inappropriate to include in this list. Hey, if I'm wrong in my thinking, I am willing to listen. I mean, I am no expert on WP:MOS or WP:LIST, but I can read, and I think that the intent of the guidelines is quite clear. Unschool (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems adequate. Some formatting is needed, because that large block of text has the same problem you cited, but it is an improvement. WP:LEAD states that the topic of the article needs to be summarized in the lead. When I wrote that, I wrote with the idea that the topic was the show. I am all for a revision, but not a WP:BOLD battle for one. This is a talk page matter, and needs to be handled accordingly. *SIGN* 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I did anything inappropriate by my edit. Yes, it was significant, but I explained it (at length) on the talk page, and I certainly feel it was covered by BOLD. Still, if you think it's a "talk page matter", then by definition, you are right, and I shall not revert it.

Yes, I am familiar with WP:LEAD; however, like it or not, Wikipedia policy and guidelines are quite fragmented. It would appear reasonable to me that, since no inherent contraditions are indicated, that WP:LIST take precedent here. For the reasons that I explained above, it would seem to be not only policy, but logical. So let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that even the trimmed-down version that I wrote is too long? If so, I'm in concurrence; I was striving for consensus, not perfection. I'm not sure what the formatting issues are to which you refer. Unschool (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The formating issues lie in the fact that it is an ugly block of text. It needs to be broken. Part of where WP:LEAD comes in. Paragraphs. I agree that it needs to be cut down, not necessarily your version, but the lead in general. You were more than covered by WP:BOLD, thats why I wasn't rude in my revert. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I just want consensus of whatever version is implemented, just like when the current version happened. This list was revamped for the sole purpose of being an FL. That didn't happen, any suggestions for improvement are welcomed and encouraged as I still want that to happen. *SIGN* 06:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never done any work towards achieving FL status, but I must say, this would have appeared to me to be a good candidate. The color coding of the seasons is great; it enhances both the aesthetics and the functionality. I just think that we have to recognize that a stand-alone list serves a different purpose than a standard article. It exists to provide a quick overview of—well, essentially of a database—that would be disruptive of the standard article on the subject, either because of its size or some other consideration. Narration should not be a major component. This comes close, but then, you already know how I feel about it. Is anyone else going to weigh in on this? Unschool (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll weigh in I guess. I see Unschool's point about cutting the second paragraph as valid. If I had more time, I would essentially cut the current second paragraph and try to see if I could expand the first and split it up into paragraphs. That sound like a good idea? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FL?, "..that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." The first paragraph introduces the subject and the subject of the list, as an episode list. The second paragraph defines the scope by providing a brief plot summary. As all Featured List articles have been in the past, this two-paragraph lead is quite standard. --haha169 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about FLs in the past to say what is "standard", but I don't believe that "defining the scope" has anything to do with what you are saying. Defining the scope means to clarify what goes in the list and what does not. For example, the list is a list of Airbender episodes. Defining the scope means to do exactly what someone did when they clarified that it does include the recap and parody episodes, something that would not have been necessarily obvious to the reader. The plot material has no place here, that falls into the realm of this article. I would imagine that somewhere on Wikipedia there's a list of all the Popes. "Defining the scope" should include clarifying whether or not the anti-popes were included, and other such issues. It should not include any explanation of what any pope did (unless it was a proclamation of a pope about who should be included on the list!). Unschool (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lists#Lead section or paragraph no longer says "If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. 'This is a list of dog breeds.'" Note also that that section, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria and WP:FL?#2 all link to WP:LEAD, which says:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article.
In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

It doesn't matter which List guideline you look at, they all refer back to WP:LEAD. Remember also that "list" namespace pages differ in no way from "article" namespace pages, except that one contains a list and the other contains prose. The rules, policies and guidelines apply to both in equal amounts. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous, my friend. Lists may be articles, but not all articles follow the same rules. That's why, for example, there is WP:LIST. And the very guideline to which you link says

If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so.

First of all, that's an "if" in there, so right there is a conditional that distinguishes lists from other articles, despite the fact that you claim there are no differences. Indeed, the mere fact of the existence of WP:LIST indicates that there are differences betweens lists and other articles. I can't imagine how that fact can be contested. Secondly, no one is disputing the point that we need to clarify what goes in the list. It's a question of what is necessary to do it. Your argument is essentially that, in a List of the Presidents of the United States, that I need to explain what the constitutional duties of President are. Ain't so. As someone who had never heard of Airbender a week ago, I don't need an explanation of the plot of the show to know that it is a show. It is, however, very helpful to understand that that list will include books and chapters, instead of seasons and episodes. If I want to know more than a single sentence's worth of content, I go to the main article.

What I'm wondering about right now is if you really understand what I'm talking about and just disagree, or whether or not you're missing the point altogether. I mean, where do you get the idea that somehow you need to explain on the List page the same information that we get in the article page? What on earth would be the point? I'm one click away from information nirvana, and you think you need to give me the qualitative equivalent of page 14 of last month's newspaper. I don't know, it's really a strange concept to me. And I don't see the foundation for it in the guidelines. Unschool (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I know they don't all follow the same rules, but the rules they both follow, the follow equally. Yes, the lead section should clarify what a list includes, but a lead section of a regular article should also clarify what is included in the rest of that. I didn't mean that lists and articles are exactly the same and should be treated the same, but with regards to the Lead, it must do the same thing.

For a list of US presidents, I believe you have to say what the US president is, not necessarily his constitutional duties, but what it means to be President, what the position is, to provide context for the reader. I would also say how many there have been, who was the first, and who is the current. I may also include other information, such as how long a person is President for (a term of four years) and then maybe say who has held consecutive terms, who has held office more than once (separately), who has died while in office. An overview of the presidents, not what the president does. That's just off the top of my very head, at 2.30am, mind you.

No, plot summaries should not be included in a list of episodes (unless there are no season articles). FYI, I have been the main contributor to 8 episodic Featured lists (List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes and each season of that series) and 3 other Featured lists (Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions and List of Blue Peter presenters, as well as two Featured articles related to TV series (Degrassi: The Next Generation and Mother and Child Reunion), and writing the Leads for the FLC List of 7th Heaven episodes and former FL List of The Sopranos episodes.

While I may not be expressing myself as well as I might at 10am, I do know the different between a list and an article, and am not suggesting that any old information is stuck in there to bulk it out, but also, a little more than simply "Avatar: The Last Airbender is a 61-episode Emmy award-winning American animated television series written and created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko. It aired from February, 2005 to July, 2008." I would say how many seasons, whether the episodes have been released on DVD, or any other new media outlets such as iTunes or something. I wouldn't include the current second paragraph, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you would exclude the current second paragraph, then there's very little difference between us. By any chance, did you see my version of the lead? Let me know what you think.

Oh, just for curiosity, I looked at List of Presidents of the United States after reading your comments. Turns out it's an FL. And it does just what I've been saying. It has nothing on their duties, doesn't say even how long the term of office is. It just clarifies who goes on the list and how they're numbered. Okay, sounds like you're going to bed; me—I hope to never get involved with these list issues every again. Not my bag. Unschool (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC Time

Time to send this towards FLC again? The seasons seem fine, the table is cited, and the lead seems OK, syntax-wise. Perhaps we ought to make a Region 2 Release Date table? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps... We might be able to integrate it into the current table. If no one attempts it, I'll do it when I have time. *SIGN* 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked another user to do a quick style edit for the lead, and I'll make the region 2 table now. That should be everything, so I'll put it for FLC soon. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Banged out one and placed it at Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes/possible region 2 table. I dunno if we should leave it like that, or just massively cut it down? Please edit it/incorporate it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating... NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it down, no real reason for the Bk2 and Bk3 sections if they don't have any info. I meant to reply, but I kept forgetting... *SIGN* 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Starting FLC NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual Episode Articles

I seem to recall that individual episodes had their own articles (I contributed to some of them), but now all links are referenced back to a list of TV-guide-style blurbs. Was all of that work people invested really discarded? SteveG (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was. I'm sorry, but the articles didn't seem to meet the standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia and had to be merged into a giant list. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A huge cleanup of all individual episode articles across the entire project was conducted a year ago. Avatar episodes weren't the only ones affected - but only ones with verifiable citations remained. I went back and checked the histories of those episode articles, and found that the bulk of them were merely plot summaries. If you want, you can re-create them; but this time with limitations to fictional events and focusing more on real-life impacts. See Sozin's Comet. --haha169 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Section move

I'd like to propose we move the DVD information to below the episode listing. For one, a part from the LOE pages, it's generally standard practice among TV and Film articles to put DVD info last. This is a List of Episodes page, and not a List of DVDs page, so the first thing a reader should see should be the episodes. It's also a bit misleading to have it under "Series overview" (or something similar), because it isn't an overview or a summary. It's just a table for the DVD releases. I recently adjusted List of Smallville episodes to reflect that, moving the DVD info below the episodes under the new header of "Home video release", which is more appropriate given what it actually is. This isn't a major change, but I'd rather come to the talk pages of all the relevant LOE pages first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The series overview does not just contain a list of DVDs though. It also contains season number, episode count, and original airdates, all highly important to have before the massive list of episodes. I think the way it is currently is fine. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a larger discussion taking place at WT:TV. Many of the things you bring up are addressed there, with an editor pointing out that the important information is already (or is supposed to be) in the lead paragraphs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK. I have WP:TV on my watchlist, but I guess I must have missed that discussion. Thanks for pointing me towards it. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Anyone know the excuse for releasing Region 4 more then 2 years after Region 1? So much for Global Commerce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.119.205 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Episode titles are in a different language

Some mongoloid has decided to change the title of each episode to another language even though this is the English Wiki page (I think). It was in English a couple of days ago; I know because I read it. Could someone be kind enough to restore the original episodes names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.5.84 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Just so you know, if you want to do a mass revert, use the history tab and just check the appropriate revisions. Derekloffin (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was changed by someone who speaks (and obviously writes) Dutch (Netherlands). I know, 'cause I understand Dutch. As you stated Derekloffin, let's assume that he (or she) thought he was on the Dutch Wiki page. Although I can't hardly believe that you don't see these lines of English words. I have put a (welcome)template on his talk page that welcomes him to edit pages on the Dutch version of Wikipedia. WillH (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Volume DVD's and a semi-protection recommendation.

A while back, post FA-promotion, this article ran into a bit of vandalism. While it appears that most of the damage was fixed, it seems the DVD section was not restored. The individual regions fell under the actual episode lists, which doesn't make very much sense. Some, but not a lot. With Korra coming, and semi-regular vandalism, shouldn't this article be protected? It's an FA after all, they should be protected by default. 71.207.158.68 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Korra

Is it usefull to add the episode of the new series about Korra? --AvatarTeam - Talk with me? 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless we have something beyond the number of episodes (episode titles, summaries, etc) that is confirmed, I would say no. Derekloffin (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dashpace778 I would also say no. The legend of Korra series is a whole different series then the last air-bender page. I would say it deserves its own page. —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Request to start article on "The Blue Spirit"

Hello Avatar gang, how's it all going. Listen, I would really love to start an article on the episode "The Blue Spriit". The reason we should get one goin' is because it's one of the best (possibly THE best) episode of Avatar and it just has some of the best development on the show. So please, offer any comments responding to my request. THANK YOU!! Oh babe (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Oh_babe

Spam Link

Listed under references, the first link I believe to be a link to an incorrect website. "Avatar The Last Airbender episodes" links to http://avatar-the-last-airbender.download-tvshows.com/ Jacfalcon (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)