Talk:The Day of Black Sun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Aired in The Netherlands

Part 1 of the Day of Black Sun movie, The Invasion, has aired in the Netherlands, according to what I've read on Avatar Spirit. While I can't confirm it, I think it deserves some looking into. If so, then information from the first half of the movie can be posted. 68.175.106.168 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed true. The Dutch dubbed version of Avatar has been aired on the Dutch Nickelodeon on Friday the 23rd of November at about 17.25. 84.25.243.111 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch dubbed version of 'The Eclipse' has already been aired in the Netherlands on Monday the 26th of November at 17.20. 195.169.203.46 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Official Turbonick Preview

Should we post any information from the 1 and a half minute preview Nick put on Turbonick? I mean, unlike the leaked episode (which I did not watch), this one wasn't obtained illegally. 68.175.106.168 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That we sure could. I don't know what the preview contains, though, so I can't do it myself. Just make sure you cite it - with a valid citation, it would be vandalism for me or anyone else to remove it. 春Harukaze風 15:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping somebody else could, as I don't have an account so I can't edit the article. The video shows Haru, the Foggy Swamp Tribe, Hakoda, Bato, The Boulder and Hippo from the Earthbending tournament arriving. That's it. Video link is: http://www.nick.com/turbonick/index.jhtml?extvideoid=86268 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.106.168 (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap, I'm sorry, wasn't thinking when I posted that. I should stop wikiing in the early morning. If I have time, I'll give it a glance when I get home, otherwise someone else can tackle it. 春Harukaze風 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, are you going to put in the information from the Turbonick video? With Haru, the Foggy Swamp Tribe, Haru's father, Hippo, The Boulder, and the Water Tribe men arriving?68.175.106.168 (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly not. Well, dude, don't be worried, it's just like 6 more days till friday, and they'll air it, so everyone who did watch the episode (those who were too excited to worry about legal issues) and the rest of the avatar watching world will calm down.Pejmany (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

uh...

wasnt it stated that this page isnt supposed to exist yet? i am prolly wrong but yeah.--70.191.250.249 22:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

References.. :) --Lucky135g 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename

No evidence has been shown for the titling of either half of the special being aired as "Day of the Black Sun", even that title is contested with the "the" sometimes appearing and sometimes not ("Day of Black Sun"). Previous Avatar episodes have either added a "Part 1" and "Part 2" along with individual titles(The Spirit World (Winter Solstice, Part 1), Avatar Roku (Winter Solstice, Part 2)), have had no modifiers (The Siege of the North, Parts 1 and 2) or have had no "Part" at all (The Guru, The Crossroads of Destiny). Currently we need a consensus for the naming of these two articles. I have several suggestions below:

• The Invasion (Day of Black Sun Part 1)
• The Invasion (Avatar: The Last Airbender)
• Day of Black Sun Part 1

Please comment below. ShadowUltra 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move it to Day of the Black Sun. Blue Mirage 09:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the correct title. First off, every time this event is mentioned, it is "The Day of Black Sun" no THE. Also TV Guide Is famous for getting episode titles incorrect, and not fixing them. Run along to their site and you see "Daydreams and Nightmares" in place of "Nightmares and Daydreams", "Avatar: The Last Airbender" instead of "The Awakening", "The Secret of Ba Sing Se" instead of "City of Walls and Secrets", "The Deserters" instead of "The Deserter", "Fortune Teller" instead of "The Fortuneteller", and "The Warriors of Kyoshi Island" instead of "The Warriors of Kyoshi". We will never know until the episode comes out, but I've placed my bets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.46.115 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Without any consensus, merged the two articles together, which goes against the conditions set up in "The Guru" and "The Crossroads of Destiny" and other two-part episodes with different names. We need to settle this debate. ShadowUltra 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have no sources besides TV.com, then we have to use their episode title. The Placebo Effect 22:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The episodes have been leaked. It's "Day of Black Sun, Part 1: The Invasion" and "Day of Black Sun, Part 2: The Eclipse" respectively. Whenever they air separately, they'll most likely be titled as "The Invasion" and "The Eclipse". Do as you see fit. Modem 09:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On Turbonick, the sneak peak of part 1 is called, "Day of the Black Sun Part 1" 68.175.106.168 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No do not Rename this artical Becuse it is Called the Invasion and the one after is the Eclipse and they are Ofishaly titaled as such72.230.63.44 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if English isn't your first language, but for the record, its "article" "because" "officially" and "titled". 72.234.46.115 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Airdate?

TV guide has 11/30 for the US airdate, but where is the info for the UK airdate coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.131.5 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the 30th listed on the Nickelodeon website, but I didn't make note of the specific URL. 春Harukaze風 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An official press release from Viacom has confirmed that Day of the Black Sun will air on November 30. Here is the article link: http://www.viacom.com/NEWS/NewsText.aspx?RID=1077954 68.175.106.168 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaked

This episode and the next have been leaked on some websites. Should these be added? Or should the content only be added on the official airdate? Firnagzen 12:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should. The episode still hasn't aired anywhere, and I don't think we should provide anything plot relevant yet as the videos were directly obtained from the viacom website. Legal action and all that jazz. 99.226.44.161 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

its info and this is an encyclopedia. we MUST put it on.p.s. someone already as--Tosta mista 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't except leaked information. I'm removing it all. The Placebo Effect 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude it's info, we have it, therefore, as wikipedians, we must put it in. We did not break any laws to obtain, so we CAN--Tosta mista 23:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was obtained by hacking. Unless you can cite where it came from, then you can't put it in. The Placebo Effect 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it us that haked? no therefore we CAN, no we MUSt its an encyclopedia right thats what i keep hearing we have to. ps if we don't katara/aang fans will be breathing down are necks like the avatar team did in the invasion. pps it was a SICK episode.--Tosta mista 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If the episode and information came from an illegal source, we can't use it. The Placebo Effect 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the episode was leaked bears no legal consequence.. it is not a crime to say that the episode was leaked. Therefor it should be available. Mptc 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WE can state an episode is leaked, but until the information is obtained legally, we can't use it in the articles. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Were is that stated. ps How did this even happened, do you know?--Tosta mista 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Canada is farther along than the US, someone mentioned above that the UK is also. Not verifiable though. Perhaps someone from one of these two regions should confirm. --Charitwo ^talk 23:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

here it is stated. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a litteral leak it didn't air if you see the episode on avatarchapters there is no chanel insignia--Tosta mista 23:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the episode fonny? A avatarchapters.com posted anything that wasn't real? IT IS a releable source for god's sake--Tosta mista 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it obtained legally? no, so we can't use it. The Placebo Effect 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

look i get what you mean, but this is not just a simple summary, this is an actual episode. I just don't see the problem.

ps Does anyone one have asy idea how the epiosde leaked and when exactly--Tosta mista 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick uploaded the episode onto the site early, then someone hacked the site to find it. The Placebo Effect 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is on Youtube right nowSonicfan122 02:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Wikipedia expert, so I'll just pose the question and hope a reasonable discussion can be presented. Regarding the deletion (and re-insertion) of the plot summary: Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding this sort of thing? I suspect it's not often when a televised series (such as Avatar) inadvertently has an entire episode or two released to the public (by unintended means).. However, sometimes the information does become available to the public. For instance, when Ken Jennings lost his Jeopardy winning-streak, did Wikipedia censor the information? Well before Ken Jenning's loss, it was "known" and written about (including in journalistic sources, such as the AP). Was the information surrounding Jennings barred from Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have an anti-spoiler policy? Cookie3 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy that "Wikipedia is not censored." However, it also has a policy that articles must have a reliable source. In the Ken Jennings case (which I don't know what we did), their were AP articles about it. In this case, no article has been written it, then we can't use the summary. The Placebo Effect 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are censoring info and a refuse to be a part of it. You block this article but anybody that see's the episode and what's to put info an wikipedia will find a way. I respecte others opinions as much as the next guy but this is just wrong. ps Who in the hell blocked the article, and on what grouds seeing as i'm not going to do anything, all other edits are minor vandalism. pps This sucks--Tosta mista 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And anotherthing you sould add that the episode was leakeded and on what date--Tosta mista 09:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The episode in question has been shown in the UK, my mate said he saw it the other day on Nick.Wild ste 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the information from the leaked episodes can't be used. It doesn't matter if it's obtained by legal means or not. WP:V has nothing about 'illegal' information being forbidden on Wikipedia. The info is out, we should use it. JadziaLover 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

and another thing just because you think the episode souldn't be put here doesn't give you the right to block the page--Tosta mista 19:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The essential problem is this: anyone who is watching the episode is doing so illegally, so witting our own summary is essentially illegal, because we would have to watch the episode first. Even if we found a source with a summary already written, their validity as a source is questionable at best because even if you can somehow verify the episode they watched was legitimate, they would not have been able to watch this by legal means. Also, all media is subject to change up and until its official release. Basically there is no possible way to verify the information as valid, or to obtain it legally.65.213.142.2 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

the information is valid, theres no doubt. Now, abou the legal issue, i repeat was it us that broke the law? NO so we can put it up i mean we don't even now how it leaked, we mearly have the info, heck what if we send an email asking foe nicks aproval in writting the summary wil they give a damm? of course not with or without the summary the damage is done, people are gona watch it anyway, it's on youtube, veoh dailymotin, i've even seen it on google, one sumary will not change anything. ps ac i add that the episode was leaked, or is that illegal to? --Tosta mista 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember when Harry Potter 7 was linked onto the internet? the information didn't go into the article until the book was sold at the OFFICIAL date. Check the talk pages of said article for disscusions. Any reason why we should act differently? The Placebo Effect 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is illegal to view the episode on youtube and veoh. Thats the point here. Even if you aren't the one hacking the server, anyone who writes the summary has to have seen the episode, since there is no legal way to have seen the episode, you can't have a summary without the person writing it breaking the law. As for validity, its not a question as to weather or not this footage was genuinely produced by nick, but weather or not this is the final episode they will air. They could change a major line of dialog, cut an important scene, or scrap and rewrite the entire episode. This may seem unlikely, however it happens from time to time.65.213.142.2 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was diferente the info was mearly written there was no way to comprove it. In this case it's an entiry episode and by comparing it to the trailer we can see it's real ok? ps sobody added things on Katara and Iroh's page and i mearly corrected the grammar and links seeing as i am not in favor of this. pps Can i add that the episode was leaked? prety please?--Tosta mista 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you look at the main discussion on the episode listings, you will see that it has been agreed that if the episode has been airred in the UK, its ok to put up the information up as this is not limited to America. As the episode in question (and the next one) as been shown in the UK already, I don't see what the problem is with putting up a summary.Wild ste 13:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.189.20 (talk)

Alright, so so far all we have is this. Someone hacked into Nick and got the episode. It was spread around, and this article was created. I don't give a damn about whether the person who created it hacked nick or was told by someone, it all started with an illegal act. So -makes a loud buzzer sound-, this article should be deleted until such time Nick releases it publicly, and the information about this episode can be obtained legally. Espilceranul 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I gonna ask i lawier(spelling wrong)about this( i have one in my family), but my brother told me that as long as certain things happen the info becomes public, and, as a result, postable. ps It's everywere, there's not a single video site that doesn't have. At this point, nick is screwed either way( just saying)--Tosta mista 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your brother's statement is that the info was never supposed to be public and one bad guy set the whole thing off by hacking into Nick and revealing the info. Therefore, we at Wikipedia are trying to be a little mature here and act as if nothing happened and we're supposed to wait until the episode comes out. And the info is NOT postable because A. It was never supposed to be released, B. It will spoil everything for the viewers and C. It'll be a total ripoff for Nick. Espilceranul 05:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude i'm saying i don't know, but if it his legal then we can post it. I supose?. ps I tried to find more info and this is what happened exacly: They put up the ep online so thay could put up regular previwes because of of all the UK misape thing, sobody hacked the site and got the ep from the site, put it upon a video site that wasn't even avatarchapter.com or anything like that, from there it spread like a root of a tree. --Tosta mista 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. You just hit the point bang-on but you didn't even know it. It ISN'T legal, and that's why we can't post it. And if you don't know, ask the majority of the peopl in this debate. Espilceranul 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to worship my brothers friend for confirming it's legal. ps haruzake next time you want to adresse me personaly post a comment in the discussion of my main page( i treat it like a sort of mail box) ok. I don't like being adressed like that. pps how about we end this it's geting useless ok?

You were the one insisting the fact that other people committed the crime and that you were innocent, which was incorrect. I'm sorry, but it was relevent to the discussion, otherwise I would have used your talk page. As for your brother's friend, sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Unless he's a lawyer for Nickelodeon and making an official statement on behalf of the company, he has no official say. We really can't go on your word alone either, because my best friend's brother's uncle's nephew's third-cousin-once-removed says so. 春Harukaze風 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. If it turns out i'm wrong, can i PLEASE have the plesure of putting up full episode summary and images etc, when it DOES come out?---- Tosta mista (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN Whoever posts, posts. You can't claim an update as your own. 春Harukaze風 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ye i know. I just want to do it, i have loads of pics and stuff o i can do it.--Tosta mista (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit defeat. I asked my brother's friend and she said that in order for the information to become valide viacom or nick or whatever would have to issue a release or something that stated that they recognissed the ep his out. I suposse they have done no such thing so we wait, CLEAR people?--Tosta mista (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Legality and stuff

You say that you did not break the law. That is incorrect. If someone steals a DVD, for example, and then gives it to you, are you the legal owner of that DVD? No. The same applies here. Someone stole those episodes and gave them to you [and to me, I'm ashamed to admit]. I was not aware that it was illegal at the time, and I'm willing to assume that you didn't either, but that doesn't change the fact that it was illegal. 春Harukaze風 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i suspected something but i just wanted to watch it so bad...i later conformed my supicions. sure the info is stolen but i ask you: is nick gona give a damm? look all i want is to put up the info so if i cant skrew it, but anything i find i only correct, i wont delete anything--Tosta mista 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nick is gonna give a damn. They make this episodes for a REASON, you know. They make money off of selling them to channels for them to air, but now as a generous offer they let some people see the episodes for free, and it's totally their right to stop TurboNick. Therefore, if they accidentally put some episodes onto TN and somebody hacks into TN for those episodes, it's totally illegal because a. They were never supposed to air and b. TN's purpose is for the people to see some of the episodes before other people do, and not for them to keep the file of the episode and distribute it to others. Therefore, they still make some money off of making the episode albeit at a small cut-down price because a fraction saw it for free. But now everyone is getting the episode for free, and that's not okay because it's going to be a total ripoff for Nick. Espilceranul 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...I don't know what the laws are on stolen property that's been handed down. I do know though, that if I buy a watch, and it turns out that watch was stolen, I need to give that watch back to the rightful owner. TV is complicated, because I can't 'unsee' the episodes, but I by no uncertain terms, obtained them illegally and without permission (I do feel guilty). In any case, unlike the UK mishap, these episodes haven't aired at all, period. Writing anything about the episode content beyond what was officially released (the preview) would be a spoiler. And if not by an legal means, I don't think the episode should be spoiled for those who didn't know to, or decided not to get it early. 64.80.131.5 20:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tosta Mista, you're being highly disagreeable here. You don't see the fact that the information was first obtained illegally, and no matter how low on the chain of info-spreading you are, the whole chain was started by an illegal act. YOU didn't obtain the info illegally, but that person who found out about it first DID. So God damn it, that's why everyone is so riled up about this. Espilceranul 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an expert in copyright law here, but... won't information obtained from the leaked episode be the same as info from the exact same episode when it legitimately airs? The source itself (the episode) is a legitimate source of info, which is what Wikipedia should have - info. Whether the LEGITIMATE source of LEGITIMATE information was illegitimately or legitimately disseminated should not be a factor affecting the decision of adding the plot synopsis into the article. I see some people saying that "I saw the episode" is not a verifiable source, so tell me, when it actually comes out, isn't the source still "oh, i saw the episode"? Can't we at least just write the plot out and slap on "citation needed" after every sentence until it comes out? P.S. If I have repeated a point mentioned above, I apologize and kindly ask to be pointed to the exact sentence. my short attention span stopped reading after the first paragraph of this section. Signal2noize 09:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is what we should do. @Harukaze nomatter hor the episode was acquired watching it online is illegal. and @64.80.131.5 as said before wikipedia does not censor not posting something as it would be a spoiler is censoring therefore not posting it because some people haven't seen it would be censoring. Joeking16 12:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, With everything going on in the US atm *cough* WGA Strike *cough* We shouldn't be risking this sort of thing. I suggest we just wait till the episode airs in England then write the Plot Synopsis that way we can solve the legality issue whilst pleasing the "Legit" fans out there. NB I d/ed the episode too =[ JSFighter 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since most hardcore fans probably would have found this out already it should be displayed because most will know already and if people don't want to see it they don't have to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.204.204 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We need a legitimate source of information. All reliable fan sites I know of are refusing to post spoilers and banning members that do. So that eliminates fan sites. No news articles have been written on it, so that is not possible either. At this point, the only possible way to accurately get the information from a reliable source would be to watch the episode. But to do so would be to use an illegal source, which is not acceptable. So there is no possible way we could post it with a reliable source without violating the law. And it is not allowed to post it without a source. Seems to pretty much sum it up. So no info gets posted. 68.175.106.168 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what I think is the funniest? The information is still here to see for anyone who wants it...you can watch the video, or just go back through the editing history of this page. Wikipedia is great at tracking changes.....enjoy the plot spoiler all you have to do is look through wikipedia's edit log. LOL you narcs are funny, and you have no life. There's more than enough links and references that can be sited, so you ought to unlock the page for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.117.10 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, I've never been called a narc before. I feel honored now. Happily though, your arguments are very much invalid. People who don't want spoilers aren't going to go looking through the history to find what we've deleted. They're only going to see the article as it is. So kindly sit your ass down and wait the whole whopping one or two weeks left until it airs. 春Harukaze風 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you'd enjoy it.....cause in order to be a wiki admin you pretty much have to feed off of user conflict -- it's your nature. Now I do have a concern over the choice of words many of you posters are using. Please, can we speak kindly and use language that mothers throughout the world can be proud of? On another note: Why would I wait patiently to see the episode, when I've already seen and shared it with many others? I've even posted a french plot synopsis for episode 310 (mainly to see if you all would delete it). I think it's hilarious how you're trying to hide information and say it's invalid. Also I'm completely free of crime, because I was unaware that it hadn't aired, I assumed that it had in England or Canada....so please don't call me some sort of criminal. I'm just a big fan like many others who'll buy the dvds as they come out. (I already own seasons 1 and 2) Love you guys! ~Nate

Okay, guys, stop. You guys need to read WP:CIVIL - we're supposed to be civil to each other here. Do not bring your arguments to this page. If you guys want to snipe at each other, take it somewhere else. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, to be able to get rid of DOBS content on the Wikipedia pages, I actually had to go out and watch the leaked version of the episode just so it wouldn't be spoiled for me. 72.234.46.115 (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the worst :( I'm sorry if things were getting spoiled for you. I had the same problem, I read all about Zuko's actions from that episode before seeing it. I rushed to a website I know for Avatar episodes, thinking it was legitimately up... wasn't until someone got slapped with a banstick for posting the episodes that I knew what was up :\ But the damage was already done - I knew what was coming, so it lost something, knowing it was going to happen. There wasn't that "OMG AWESOME!" moment I could have had otherwise. That's one of the main reasons I'm so gestapo on removing information: it got spoiled for me, but I'll be damned if I'm letting it get spoiled for others. It's the lack of consideration that bothers me so much :( 春・Harukaze・風 12:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was luky there, every day i go to avatarchapters just for the heck of it, and there it was i was like "shoot now ask questions latter", then i go to wikipedia to post the info i find it's leaked and the rest you alredy know. The wierdest part is that i usualy come here first, if i had it would have been ruined, so i guess i kinda get your point on not posting the info, but it's over anyway, so who cares, i've watch the ep the rest...I dont care anymore.--Tosta mista (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not moved.

I think this is good. I think it should be on move-protected permanent though. --Lucky135g 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Sypnosis

Hey there. I'd like to add the full plot, as the show can already be watched here: (REMOVING LINK, EPISODE WAS OBTAINED ILLEGALLY) So please release it for editing, or edit it yourself. I see no sense in detaining the plot to others, only because it hasn't aired yet. Aresius, free watcher 10:06, 12 November 2007 (GMT)

When the episode airs on TV the article will be unprotected. Until that time, no summary will be in this article.The Placebo Effect 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I watched it on the 3rd which was over a week ago here in the UK it has been aired so you can put it up now. Joeking16 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think it should be moved? I think the name of the page is FINALLY perfect. --Lucky135g 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the episode was obtained illegally. It was put up on TurboNick early and some people grabbed it from the website where it was put for public viewing before it was taken down. 128.235.249.80 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was put on TurboNick early, and wasn't intended to be watched. I also doubt that it aired in the UK. 64.80.131.5 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Doubting it does not make it untrue it was aired in the UK I watched it on the 3rd either that or Nick decided to air a very very good fake of it which I doubt they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeking16 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is preprosterious 1 It is not a crime to see a stolen video... the government cannot control what you see. It is obvious that no one here has competence in the legal field. 2 therefor sense the episode has been seen the plot is valid. so the plot should be returned. and therefor that is what i'm going to do. Cordially Mptc 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite your work then. Except that in citing your work, you'd be citing a copyright violation, which is against policy. In short, since you can't cite it, you can't post it.

And yes, the government can and does control what you watch. And handling stolen goods is still handling stolen goods, virtual or otherwise. 春Harukaze風 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me one example of the Government controling what you watch (nothing to do with the page just wanted one). Joeking16 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of the MPAA? Also lol @ mptc Nice English mate JSFighter 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The MPAA censors and classifies what you watch. They don't outright exclude it from view. Besides, as said below MPAA isn't the government. The only films I know of that were completely screened from view were some Russian movies during the communist regime (Ivan the Terrible movies, Andrei Rubleiv, etc), and Disney's Song of the South (which I've actually seen, and not only is not racist, but it shows a fair version of the slavery picture, that there may have been some abuse but there were also some good times too. I saw Wild Wild West with Will Smith a little after it, and that was actually more racist. Proving that Disney is run by fascists who believe in prohibitive censorship). Something which is already in print (legal or not), and is then excluded out of existence is not only going across the line with copyright, but it's almost a freedom of expression amendment violation. Bulmabriefs144 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have but unless you mean something other then Motion Picture Association of America then it isn't the government. Joeking16 09:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just randomly stumbled on this page. If this is the page for Part 1, why does the long plot synopsis start with "The second installment begins with the eclipse"? As per WP:CRYSTAL, information "must be verifiable." If the plot synopsis can't be proved aside from "Oh, I saw the episode," then it shouldn't be listed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most likely due to the fact that black sun normally means eclipse and it is the second part of the third season of avatar. Joeking16 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot displayal

I've watched the episode several times. We should display it. I mean it wouldn't hurt nobody.

WarrenTrenton

Read above and you will see why we can't edit it. Joeking16 18

00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaked plot

This things plot was leaked? Is that why there are videos of it on Youtube? Username: FiercedeitylinkX —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiercedeitylinkX (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

this is some bullshit, pardon my language, but it is. The episode was leaked as a result of a folly on nick's part, i dont see how it's a crime to see it. I find this to be so funny. Nick made a mistake and unless they're trying to sue everyone who has seen the vid or posted it then i see no problem. Placebo Effect, get over yourself and let us make the article or find someone who can make an unbiased decision. like a judge or a jury. 70.191.250.249 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so hacking Viacom's server isn't illegal? I think "this is some bullshit" that you would want to post the plot on here and ruin it for people who actually follow the law. The judge and jury is the law and you not seeing it is more amazing than how bad the grammar was in your comment. -Dylan0513 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Um from what I know, most of the Avatar airings have the "Nicktoons" stamp on them. Meaning they're not hacks, they're people who watched the show, then decided to share it. Which btw mainly came as a result of Youtube BLOCKING every episode from 7 on. You also forgot the main reason Wikipedia exists, even though it says anything that violates copyright will be deleted, it's not as a "copyright site," it's a "free encyclopedia." Post the episode plot, either summed up in such a way that only the main information is told, or accept the fact that if you look hard enough you can find it anyway, so spoilers shouldn't be kept a secret from those trying to learn about what happens. Bulmabriefs144 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick isn't suing anyone because they're trying to be mature about it. If word came around that Nick has been going door to door saying "We want money blah blah blah" or anything along those lines, the reputation of being a "kids' channel" will go kaboom faster than a bomb on a centimeter-long fuse. The episode was supposed to be released later on Nick, but someone hacked into the server and got the episode. Nevertheless, getting episodes or distributable versions of anything that isn't supposed to be free is illegal. You can't hack into your TV and keep the file of the episode of any show you watch, can you? They show it once, and re run it a few times for those who may have missed the episode. For the redistributable version that you can actually keep and view it whenever you wish, you need to PAY FOR IT. Therefore, the person who got the episode for free by hacking and redistributed it to everyone else is in big trouble, and since the episode was first made public by an illegal act, you're the "bullshit" here. Espilceranul 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I though (in the USA) you could down;oad full episodes from turbonick for free.

Joeking16 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did someone stuff bad information in your head or something? TurboNick is for people to have a sneak peek of the episodes, not to download them. The person who "downloaded", as you say, the episode actually hacked into the server and took the episode. It was obtained legally. TN, as I said, is for previews of episodes, NOT for downloading them for free, geddit? Espilceranul 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean I thought they they released it early by accident and someone download they have before and about them not letting you download full episodes as I think you worked out by reading my posts on this page I am not American and as such can't use the American Turbonick site so all I have to go on is the wikipedia TurboNick which says you can download full episodes. Joeking16 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it DOESN'T say that you can download full episodes. And judging from the history since August, it never did. I don't understand the first part of your argument though. Espilceranul (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So the why did Nick upload the episode in the first palce? Anyway about the Tubrnick thing I meant Itunes sorry, as I said I am not from America so I can't use eithr so I got mixed up between them. However I think you will find underlining is just as effecive as emphasising word then shouting and alot less rude. 86.137.237.167 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The above post was from me I was posting on IE and I don't log in on it. Joeking16 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'm sorry that I shouted. But although iTunes can download podcasts, I doubt that it can download episodes for free. Episodes, no matter what series or movie, will always cost money. That person didn't pay a penny for it. Nick uploaded it by _accident_. It was never meant to be made public, so there's what happened. Case closed. Espilceranul (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean it was downloaded for free from Itunes I mean it was paid for and downloaded from Itunes, and the case isn't closing until there is a source. Joeking16 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound uncivil with this, but _do you read_? We've already made it clear that the person hacked into Nick to get the episodes. That was the source, it's confirmed, now case closed. iTunes had _nothing_ do to with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espilceranul (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I it has been said but there has yet to be given any proof, which is what I have been asking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.237.167 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We most likely are not going to get a reliable source. The episodes are not on ITunes and it is really settled that no information from ILLEGALLY leaked episodes will be posted. 68.175.106.168 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It still doens't mean it is from nickelodeon's site, and it obviously won't be on itune now if it was it would of been taken down just like it normally does if it gets put up early. Joeking16 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because its not legitimate doesn't make it any less true and our job is to give people the best information possible, not to judge.71.213.216.14 (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My toughts exacly, but they're right. The only way we can use it his if the copyright owner admits the episode as been released, by airing it they automaticly do that, but in this case they have to issue a press release or something. Get it, we can get wikipedia sued for violating copy right--Tosta mista (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 71.213.216.14, that isn't even true. It isn't just illegit, it could very well be wrong, too. It's fairly common for episodes to change, even in potentially significant ways, in post production. Any one of the creators could have looked at a scene after that version was produced and said, "Hey, you know, I think it could have been done differently," or, "Hey, you know, maybe we shouldn't make that revelation just yet. Let's wait two more episodes, and spring it then... we'll replace the scene here with something else." That sort of thing is not unheard of. So for any of a hundred reasons, we're not posting DoBS information. 春・Harukaze・風 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The ep seems pretty finished but i get you're point, but that's exacly why nick would never confirm the ep existance, so they can change what seems fit, get it?--Tosta mista (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New press release

Now, here's a source we can actually use: a press release from the Viacom website confirming the American airdate and revealing other details, such as the Boulder's return and that Mick Foley and Serena Williams provided guest voices. --Herald Alberich 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Aired in Canada?

Someone tried to put up an airdate of 16 November in Canada, but it was reverted because there is no field for a Canada airdate. First question: did it air in Canada - can anyone source this? Second, why would it air only in Canada? I'm not inclined to believe it, myself. But third, if it did air, and someone can source this, should we then add a line to the template to allow for Canadian airdates when they differ in a notable way from the US/UK airdates? 春・Harukaze・風 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No it did not. I got that rumor two, the canadian airdate was wensday(Spelling) last week, it's not true.--Tosta mista (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll be keeping my eyes open on Friday to see if Canada does air then. If it does, then maybe we should add to the template. 春・Harukaze・風 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actualy this friday it airs in the UK.--Tosta mista (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, I guess, won't we? It'd be nice if it did - I'm real tired of reverting changes :( Last I saw there was a cited source from Nick that said both the UK and the US were getting the episode on the 30th. The UK doesn't have a holiday this week, so there seems to be no reason for a Spongebob marathon, but supposedly there's going to be some new movie or some such, so who knows? I'm going to hope for Friday though. 春・Harukaze・風 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They had the same airdate as the US but the US post powned their airdate for gaypants (pardon the language), so now the UK as it's airdate first. ps i saw the ep so i don't care--Tosta mista (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is being aired right now on the dutch Nickelodeon Channel 84.193.16.58 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just on nick's UK site and I looked through what is going to be on friday the 30 and didn't see any avatar at all. I'm in the US so my info is limited (aka can't use Turbo Nick).Smileyface 12 91 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

312

Uh, is 312 out yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.210.90 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that episode 310 isn't out yet, no, 312 is not out. 春・Harukaze・風 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for asking this here but i can't stand forums, nobody tell's the truth: Does anybody know when 312 is supose to air?--213.22.250.10 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Air Temple

here is the source: http://www.tv.com/avatar-the-last-airbender/the-western-air-temple/episode/1110125/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;11

From TV.com now somebody can put it in.--ThanosMadTitan23 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

tv.com have been wrong before and they usually get their information from here. So until its been confirmed by a proper source, its best to leave it off.Wild ste (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)\

Agreed. It appears that TV.com is at least partially fed by users, not the media companies themselves. 春・Harukaze・風 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about you, but i don't think that there is a fourth book out yet, especially if we're arguing about a "chapter" in the Third book. Now, even though it "might" have been mentioned in this "chapter" we're discussing, can't put anything. Pejmany (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

310/311

Is it ok if I, or someone else changes the production code since DOBS is two parts and the first part is 310 and the second part is 311. Oh and I posted this over in the episode discussion but both parts are part of chapter 10. Theres info over there that explains why. Rosario lopez (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

wait

on forums, its stated that the epsiode already aired in some places, if thats true, wouildnt it being online be legal up to copy rights?--Cody6 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Arogi Ho (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Has it aired anywhere?--Cody6 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been aired, ANYWHERE!!

See, the guy hacked NICK, and got the episode, then posted it on youtube/veoh, then other people copied it, then it got posted a couple of more times. I watched it, but, we just need to wait until Nov. 30th until we can post anything.Pejmany (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, It aired in Netherland, although it was dubbed there, but only the first episode aired. So the question is, if it aired in a foriegn language, do we inlclude its content? The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As long as it really did air. Don't know if you need to cite a source for it.Arogi Ho (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're only supposed to put it in the same language Wikipedia that it aired in, but I don't know for sure. Bagpipeturtle (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope aslong as it has aired it doesn't matter about the launguage otherwise a great nunmber of the anime topics would be deleted as they haven't yet/ever been aired offically in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeking16 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing about citation being needed.

Sure, you technically need citaton, but shouldn't it at least say that it's confrmed? Also, shouldn't there be a link to the leak? 71.191.204.98 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's copyrighted, and illegal to have/see at this point. No, it cannot be linked to.75.62.233.167 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh have you heard that Nick has confirmed that there will be 21 episodes in season 3? TThe day of black sun is counted as one episode by their standards instead of two. Also, the final four episodes of the season will be released at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.186.97 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Say it in the talk page of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes instead this is for The Day of Black Sun and only The Day of Black Sun not for the number of epiodes in the season. Joeking16 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there still no summary?

The episode has legally aired in several countries, according to the infobox in the article it aired in the UK yesterday. Is the only reason there's no summary because no one wants to make one? If so, I'll add one tonight, but I want to make sure I'm not about to waste my time. ShadowUltra (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode format

atleast in the US, on cox, it's one epsiode, showed as "Avatar: Day of black sun".

the info box i get when i click info seems ot show it's a movie in the sence that it shows a starring, date the movie was made, Program type: Movie/Action-Adventure.

shoudl we make chnages because it's 2 days from the air date and i doubt it'll change now.--Cody6 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)