Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Western Air Temple

I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I just wanted to point out that "The Western Air Temple" has already aired on YTV. So I'm asking for a go-ahead to create, or at the least, unprotect the page. Blue Mirage (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We have had the same problem with "The Day of Black Sun". Until it airs in the U.S., it is preferred that since this is an American TV Show that an article not be created. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Its aired, so go ahead and create it if you want. US isn't the entire world. Granted, the way things are going it may be a waste of time and effort, but that's another story.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if that is how you see it. Either way, if you scroll up just about half-a-page, you will see the big argument about the episode articles. Unless you can write an article that has a lot of real world information, it, along with every other episode article, will be deleted soon. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Is anyone still working on merging the episode articles into seasons? Ridernyc (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you helping? I am busy with life right now so I can't devote much effort to it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead an redirect the articles to help encourage work on season articles. For anyone that comes here from my edit summary, the first season in progress can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender/season 1. TTN (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to redirect to allow work on season articles when the info has been merge there will be time to put in redirects.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also no reason to leave them sitting there while no one is working on the season pages. Ridernyc (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one is working on the season pages no mergeing is takeing place soo we might as well stick with the episode pages for the time being.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seasons 2 and 3 are 95% done, and season one is already added to mainspace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender/season_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender/season_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender/season_3 ~Pakaroo (Pakaru) (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...And here we go. Everybody, feel free to edit war to your heart's content. Might be entertaining.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

HOw instead of edit warring people actually try to make improvement's The have bee no edits to the season article in 3 weeks. On the surface this project looks like it has a ton of members but I don't see them active in the project, I just6 see them adding plot details to articles that the project is trying to get rid. An edit war over redirects will the end just to things to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I am removing MizaBot II from archiving talk page to clean up archives. I will put it back after I am finished. Earthbendingmaster 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There we go, much better. Earthbendingmaster 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Work on a featured article

SO the season finale will be coming soon. The best way to celebrate this is with an article is the FAOTD. So the question is, which article? My opnion is the main characters. I have a fansite that could have a poll to vote on which article we should work on. Do we want to have fans choose which character, or should we choose the character? The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently I am devoting most of my time to working on Aang. The only thing holding it back is the fact that we have no references or information that allows us to add out-of-universe context. If everybody could search the web for anything, I am sure we could build up the creation and conception section as well as the character reception section at the bottom of the article. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 18:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Advertisment

Hey everybody, if you venture over to Template:Wikipedia ads, you will see ad #118, the brand new Avatar Wikiproject ad. I was getting bored so I decided to help the project in some way. I hope everybody at the project likes it. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Just as a notice, there is an important discussion going on at Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters/Qualifications about which characters in the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters article are notable enough to be included. There are currently only three people participating, and it would be appreciated if as many people as possible made a comment or two in order to help determine consensus. Thanks. 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging Universe Articles

Not to be a deletionist doesn't it seem as if we could merge a lot of the articles into one another. For instance, a lot of the information in Air Nomads, Water Tribes, Fire Nation, and Earth Kingdom are speculation that might not even be true. It would make the article much more accurate if we merged it into one article like Avatar: The Last Airbender universe or Four nations of Avatar: The Last Airbender (I am not a good article-name-maker). Just wanted some comments. (Just as a note, I do not plan on merging the character articles or anything like that.) — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 03:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ba Sing Se

Ba Sing Se is up for deletion. Hobit (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Media info

The media page has the usual benders argument, does anyone know if there's been proof at all? Keyblade Mage (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information has been nominated for deletion. Here is the nomination. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Avatar: The Last Airbender media information
• Articles for deletion/Avatar: The Last Airbender media information (2nd nomination)

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is really no point to this article. Most of the information is already in the main article, and everything else consists of useless facts that aere not needed on Wikipedia. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: The Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject has been notified of this debate. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There might be a couple useful facts that aren't already covered here, but as the nom points out, most of this is either a.) already covered in the main article, or b.) fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This expands on what is already inside the main article, so I say change the title, but all-in-all keep it. Hooty88888 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Carefully move any remaining good information to the marketing portion of the main article, then delete. Hewinsj (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any useful information to the main article. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect without deleting per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Verfifiable out of universe information of a recognizable series can be salvagaed in some capacity. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per TenPoundHammer, nothing to merge. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Per the GFDL, it is illegal to delete and merge, we merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No point to a merge. Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse Divinediscourse (who voted "delete" above) is using a sock account in multiple AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

However, he has not done so here (with the confirmed second account being Insearchofintelligentlife). Please make sure you note that in other AfDs you post this notice too, so as to ensure any sock voting can be properly seen rather than making it appear the AfD has beebn invalidated or somehow flooded with false votes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lager issue of the two accounts just being used for rapid AfD "votes" (see here and here) and given that, we probably should not take into consideration any such "votes." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per Collectonian and TenPoundHammer, no material to merge. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no harm in a worst case scenario in redirecting without deletion in order to keep contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, good and notable info, well-sourced. Everyking (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ba Sing Se

Ba Sing Se is up for deletion again. Here is a transclusion of the discussion:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While it's difficult to call two opinions a consensus, I agree that the policies and guidelines referred to in the opinions are applicable and persuasive in this case. Also, while certainly not grounds for deletion, the almost complete lack of third party WP:V sources after over a year and a half of development is also a factor. Pigman☿ 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ba Sing Se

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ba Sing Se
• Articles for deletion/Ba Sing Se (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ba Sing Se (3rd nomination)

Ba Sing Se (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was previously nominated for deletion, but was kept with no consensus. I believe the article should still be deleted. Though, as some users argued, the article discusses some notable points with relation to the show (Avatar: The Last Airbender), this article is way too detailed. When only a short summary would suffice, whole sections are dedicated to encyclopedic information. For instance, there is a three-paragraph section dedicated to the royal palace, when only one-paragraph describing what happened in the royal palace would suffice. In addition, the article is nowhere near properly sourced. In fact, it could be argued that there is a lot of synthesized original research in the article (though I will not particularly make this accusation, as I have not fully analyzed the article).

To place what I just said in better terms: A lot of the article does not fall under WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:FICTION; A lot of the article does fall under WP:DUE; There are few reliable sources and even fewer third-party sources; The article might have some WP:SYNTH. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: The Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject has been notified of this discussion. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article absolutely fails WP:PLOT and WP:FICTION. There are two pieces of sourced real world content, neither of which provides real world context for Ba Sing Se without violating WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is about real world China and makes no mention of Avatar. Making the claim that the two are directly connected is original research. The other bit of real world content is about Avatar as a whole, which does not justify an separate article under WP:N. In this case not only are we lacking sources with sufficient real world content about Ba Sing Se, we're lacking sources that even mention Ba Sing Se. The rest of the article is overly detailed plot, so there's no point in a merge. Jay32183 (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

— Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge the Bending Articles?

I just thought that I would propose that the bending articles be trimmed and merged. I don't really know much about that whole process, but I think that it would be better for organizational purposes to merge all the information into one article. Also helps lower the amount of Avatar articles and a trimming would definitely take place. Any thoughts? Just an idea.... SkepticBanner (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this whole WikiProject has come to a standstill. I do not mean this in article development, but in discussion. What I mean is that not a whole lot of people are going to see this. Personally, I agree. In fact, if you examined all of the Avatar articles, they are filled with crap and redundant plot summaries that could probably be reduced to about five to seven articles (even the Aang, Katara, Sokka, and Toph articles could be merged; in fact, in Aang's FAC, a user commented that if the article could not be expanded anymore, than there was really no purpose for a separate article. however, I am not willing to go that drastic so soon). What I suggest is that you slowly but surely filter out the crap from each bending article. When the articles are condensed to the point where they comply with policy, they should be a couple of paragraphs. Then be bold and merge them. I would help you out but I am more concerned on the Season One article which is in GAN right now. If I can help, I will pop in and trim a little every once in a while. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, I've never tried merging an article before. But I'll get to the bending articles like you said. SkepticBanner (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Our Project

Are we a separate WikiProject or are we a task force of the Television Wikiproject? Because WP:TV says we are, and if we are, wouldn't be more appropriate to move this page to a sub-page of WP:TV and merge {{WPAVATAR}} with {{WikiProject Television}}. Or is this completely wrong and the Television WikiProject is assuming us as their child WikiProject. Just a question. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be a subproject.... Rau's Speak Page 03:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. Maybe we should consult with somebody from WT:TV about this. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'll do it now. Rau's Speak Page 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it really even matter? I mean, there's hardly any Avatar articles left anymore. They're all getting deleted. Might as well just be a task force, seeing as there's not really much left for a project to do...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so dismal. The activity of a project is not determined by how many articles it has but how much progress it makes. We still have a significant amount of articles that can be improved. And our lack of articles does not make us a task force either. The Simpsons articles are watched by a task force, and they have much more than we do. (Sorry if I seem to be targeting anybody.) I think if we can get some more articles to GA, maybe start a PR on a couple of articles, we could get somewhere. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes FLRC

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes is up for FLRC due to lack of sourcing, MoS compliance, and more. Here is the nomination:

— Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Secondary Characters

Can't we just expand the list of characters section, well at least add a few sentences per character, you know, their nationality, friends and allies? Dar book (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's already at the current list. Rau's Speak Page 15:16, 12 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:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

Required Status:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
• or Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
• or Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
• Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

--haha169 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to try to simply things, if I may. Atleast two of the following four articles must be Featured class, all must be atleast GA status. Blackngold29 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

4 articles

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

Roll Call

I hardly ever see anyone on the list of members actually editing the Avatar articles. I think we need to do a roll call to update the list. Thoughts? Rau's Speak Page 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not watch the show consistantly from the beginning, but I have enjoyed seeing various episodes whenever they've been replayed. I intend to buy the complete DVD (hopefully it will follow soon after the Season 3 one) whenever it comes. I can't promise to be a regular contributer, but if anyone ever needs a peer review or suggestions on anything please let me know. Blackngold29 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Once I have a good idea of who's still active in the Task Force, I want to get the Featured Topic thingy. So, we might need some of the stuff you offered. Rau's Speak Page 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're gonna need two of the articles a Featured status to do that. I would recomend working on getting the episode list first, (I agree with the discussion about it to eliminate the episode descriptions). I was also confused as the Seasons 1 and 2 being considered "articles" where the Lost seasons are considered "lists", despite containing the same info. Thoughts on that? Blackngold29 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea. But wait, if they are lists, does GA apply? Rau's Speak Page 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's either a List or a Featured List. Blackngold29 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Huh. Well, this needs to be rectified. I'll do that. Rau's Speak Page 02:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FL

A new version of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes is currently under construction at my Sandbox. Please contribute there. Rau's Speak Page 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the optimum list to emulate is List of Smallville episodes. It makes sense and gives each article an appropriate amount of information. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  03:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I figure we should take a bit from them all. BlacknGold recommended List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, List of 30 Rock episodes, and List of Lost episodes. I think if we take a little from a lot we will get better results. Rau's Speak Page 04:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Smallville one definately looks like the quickest way to do it. Not much beyond an intro. Blackngold29 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main "problem" with the current way it's being done is that the episode summaries are repeated both on the episode list and on the individual season articles. Again, just my opinion, but that just doesn't seem to make sense (List of 30 Rock episodes has this same problem). It would seem the most sensible way to do this is to simply list the episodes in the episode list and save the summaries for the season articles, as the Smallville list, Lost list, and Degrassi: TNG list have done it. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking over a bunch of FLs I agree with you. I'm gonna do season one right now and see how it looks. You can leave any other comments on Rau's sandbox talk page. Thanks! Blackngold29 05:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge all the Universe articles together

None of them seem to have a drop of notability, perhaps together in one article, summarized and with some creator commentary they would be GA. It's a good idea, since today they would all be deleted at AFD on their own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By "Universe" do you mean the nations? Rau's Speak Page 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean when you look at the Avatar article template at the bottom of the avatar articles, it says Universe: and then lists the nations of this series. They are prime merger candidates I think. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FLC for Season one

In my opinion, Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) is probably ready to be nominated for a featured list. What do you guys think? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bumping this, as it failed because no one visited the FLC :( Come on guys. Anything you feel that we should do before I resubmit it? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Avatar: The Last Airbender

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles

OK guys, here is the plan. There are so few articles we should be able to make them all featured. Here is the way I see it:

Bending articles can prboubly be merged into one article.

We need to work on our main article.

Characters: Lets start with Aang, since he is the most important. Once we get him done, we can use that as a template for the other characters.

What have I missed? The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I updated the to do list with this information, but it bears repeating.
  • The main article is key.
  • Bending articles are already merged (I went through a sweep of the Avatar categories and did a BOLD merge). We can try to get that to a GA eventually.
  • We should get List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters to FL.
  • Characters: Aang needs a reworkup to stay at GA status. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any potential for FA for any of the other characters. Even other key characters like Katara or Zuko don't have enough reliable citations for the current FA standards. GA is certainly possible for most of them though, so lets try for that after we work on Aang.
• The problem with FA is that it has its own standards of notability, and stuff will be rejected from it that could easily pass GA. So I think we can set GA as our goal for everything. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still willing to help out I'm having computer problems right now and can't be online much at the moment.Skyrocket _(Talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nations merged

At the past few times at Featured Topics, I have noticed that several people have encouraged us to merge Fire Nation, Earth Kingdom, Water Tribe, and Air Nomads. I shall be doing so shortly, and also merging Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender into the new article, Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender. This should provide enough notability to hit Good Article, the main goal of this entire Wikiproject :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. My only concern is that the article might be too long. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

150 kilobytes in the article. Not bad. Now we just have to remove all the overdetailing, and add more of actually important stuff. Using {{subst:avatarref-ProductionCodeHere}} to cite everything would be a good idea as well. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, remove a lot of details. xD. Hmm, I wonder if we could ever get the article featured.. considering the point of the article is to be in-universe, they couldn't really complain it has no out of universe material. -Dylan0513 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article will be temporarily located at User:NuclearWarfare/Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Universe Up

Holy darn, that took a while. Anyway, Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender is up. I've taken the liberty of marking it as B-class, as it doesn't fit C but isn't close to the GAN process, and might never be. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm WHSL. I mainly edit at Wikia, where I am an admin on Avatar Wiki (under "The 888th Avatar"). So there's no doubt I know about Avatar. Ya, about this Universe article, I'm going to try shorten it when I have time. WHSL ^(Talk) 07:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge list of characters to main article

Please see Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender#Merge proposal for my plan to merge List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters into Avatar: The Last Airbender#Characters. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes up for FLRC

Hey all, List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes is up for FLRC. I am posting this message here as this is the main Wikiproject associated with that list, as well as at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender, because I figure that more people watch that page. I'd appreciate if someone else could help me out in fixing the issue with the citation templates (ie, taking the bare urls, and putting them within the full version of {{cite web}}, without deleting any parameters). I would ask that this message not be taken as canvassing (ie, don't go vote keep at that FLRC just because you saw this message), but instead that you take this oppurtunity to help one of WP:AVATAR's lists out. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Episodes

Hi. I'm a member of the task force, though I do not edit very much to the project's articles. This mainly because I generally focus on television episode articles, which this task force currently does not create (well, except of course for Sozin's Comet). However, I do believe that episode articles would be both practical, probable, and interesting (FT, anyone?) I own the last volume of Book 4 and all volumes for Book 3, which all contain DVD commentaries for episodes; therefore, production info is a no-brainer for the episodes included (plus, there's always other sources which contain info on the show) As for reception, IGN and several other credible websites review the show, which opens up several pieces of info for that section.

I believe this would be a good direction for the project to take. What are everyone's thoughts? Cheers! The Flash ^{talk} 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms

I think we should make pages about each kingdom. If not make one for all of them. Spongie555 (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging of all main characters

I vote not to merge any of the seven characters listed on this page: http://www.nick.com/shows/avatar/characters/aang.html (You'll have to click the arrow to scroll). As is, the official site agrees with this page as to what are the main characters, which demonstrates that they are important to the series. As for the characters not listed there... I don't think they would deserve their own article unless combined with others. Vote to keep only articles on the seven main characters---CodeHydro 22:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Parent5446 for moving this discussion here. I am just making a note because the context of my message has changed. The main page under discussion is the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters article. The articles that other have proposed to merge with it are Katara, Sokka, Toph, Zuko, Iroh, Azula ---CodeHydro 23:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, this discussion is actually a pretty big one, and I believe we should work to develop some sort of WikiProject content guideline that goes with whatever consensus is eventually established, so regardless of what comes out of this, I think we should come up with a concrete statement of what consensus is so we can put it on the main project page and never have to deal with this mess again.

As for my opinion on the merger: Merge all. Most of the articles, with the exception of Aang are in-universe plot summaries with no outside sources. As one of the main contributors who helped get Aang to GA status, I can say it took a hell of a lot of effort and time to get find enough sources for even the Appearances in other media section, let alone the Reception section (notice how short the latter is). To get that much outside information on a fictional character was hard for the protagonist of the show, and I believe it is impossible for the other characters. Unless evidence is brought forth that these characters are notable outside the fictional universe of Avatar, I advocate their immediate redirection or merge. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey I am really sorry about rushing in the merges. I am not the one to care if they are merged or not so I am not going to do a consensus on it. But I still ask what reliable source really determines those seven being the de facto major characters over the rest of the characters of the show. I am not sure Nick.com profiles are good examples. Jhenderson777 (talk)

I put back Appa too since the topic wasn't about merging him at first. To be honest I don't think there was a clear consensus on Ozai and Momo either. Mainly Parent5446 wanted to merge them with a understandable reason and then it became clear that most of the articles had the same problems and should probably be merged as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I already admitted that that the consensus wasn't that clear I have put back all the characters articles including Ozai and Momo. You can decide what can go and not go right here. For example it seems that Codehydro would prefer just the considered major characters to have their own article. It's up to you. I am neutral to having the freedom of all the articles or just having the one good class article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the constant replies. I am just wondering. Codehydro, For the time being, would you want it to just leave it to the major characters or would you want to keep the other character articles too. Appa, Ozai and Momo.Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, does anybody else have anything else to say, because we have still not resolved the issue of merging the article. I stand strong on at least merging the Momo, Ozai, Appa, etc. article. We might as well handle the minor and major characters as separate merge proposals so we can get something done here. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah merge those. Even though Appa is a B-Class article which I do admit is pretty decent. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one again, I must confess my ignorance in Avatar regarding notability other than my research for rescue purposes. I really like the "Creation and Concept" section in the Appa article, and think that that section alone would make it worthy to stand alone. Ozai and Momo however either lack or have a relatively incomplete "Creation and Concept." I take back my vote to keep only main characters. Basically, the real rule of thumb to decide should be WP:Plot. If somebody could start a "Legacy" section, like in Pikachu and Bulbasaur, then that would be wonderful, but I'll have to leave that job to those who actually watch the show. Sorry for the delay in response. —CodeHydro 16:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What I really want is the articles that aren't incomplete or have lacking of Creation and Concept is for people to have time to be fixed. There's plenty of time to do so. You shoudn't expect the original creator to know every thing about the character. I am not a person to randomly search Google fo a creation and concept on a fictional character. But I am sure any body in this task force can be. What I am sayig is these articles have potential to be like Appa. Appa stands out to be more decent than the major characters besides Aang. Because people took some time for it to be. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to admit it, some of these articles do have potential. When I was working on the Aang article, it took months to find information outside of plot summary, but I still found it, and now the article is GA (and it probably has the potential to become featured with a little more info and a copyedit). The problem is just finding that information. Maybe some of the sources in the Aang article have relevant information for the other characters. Despite all of this, some of these articles do not have potential. I highly doubt that Ozai or Momo are as significant enough as, say, Katara, to have enough resources to be notable. If somebody can prove me wrong, please do. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I made Momo more in universe and there's a creation and concept section no plot summary as he is like Scrat in Ice Age. (Just a cute recurring comedy relief creature that is notable.) Momo hardly has a plot worth talking about anyways. The only thing is lacking is a few citations. And I admit I am not good at that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I really think we need to discuss on how we can improve on these certain articles on these article talk pages. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Redesign of navigation template

I just redesigned this whole template. The old one was just getting plain cumbersome with the new movies and games that keep coming out. If anybody thinks the old version was better, explain why here so perhaps we can make a hybrid version with the best of both worlds---CodeHydro 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign under the subheads to vote:

I vote for the old one:

I vote for the new one. With the seasons separated into columns with the video game that belongs with that season and the movie that belongs with that season, plus the characters and the episode separated from the group titles, only makes the template look better. However, I would prefer this template, rather than the one above. And may I ask why we are questioning the old, old one? this would be something worth comprimising about (with some adjustments). ChaosMaster_Chat 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the new one:

I think the new one is organized in a way that make more sense and helps with navigation better, plus it can accommodate expansion of the universe better ---CodeHydro 00:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the old one (the one without the weird season separation). That is the way the template has always been, and while the design is not perfect (the season links cannot be seen well), the new design looks really weird. The video games and live-action movie being grouped together is bad enough, but to categorize them under the different seasons just because they were based on those seasons? No, absolutely not. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Changingmy vote from this one to one under subhead "Best of both worlds? (Outsider friendly)"---CodeHydro 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another version

The only thing that is worth keeping here is the Nicktoons Nitro... which in turn shouldn't be linked to an Avatar template because it has extremely little to do with the show. You don't see me linking Obama to the View's template. Its a simple thing like that. You shouldn't have the links in the group names, as it does become quite confusing (ask my sister for isntance, lol). Which, in turn would bring us back to a comprimise:

Suggested template

The spin-off redirects to A:TLA article. Other than that, I renamed the group titles, redid the seasons, and deleted a redundant section. It incorperates the original template, the template I designed, and the one CodeHydro designed. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the extra row for the seasons articles is unnecessary when you have the Episodes row for that. And I would not name the third section Universe, as it is kind of misleading. And how are the topics in Related different than that in Universe? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Best of both worlds? (Outsider friendly)

Ah, old Codehydro gets it now... I was quite confused at why the book, films, and games were all being placed under the season headers... that's why I redesigned it in the first place. I didn't know that the film and games were tied to specific Avatar books. The old template was too confusing for outsiders like me who don't watch Avatar and implied that the film and games were part of the television show. However, now that I understand what's going on a little better, here's what I came up with: (Note: There is a hidden spin-off section for when that Korra show takes off and gets it own article)

How do you all like it? While some sections have few items for now, remember, I'm designing this to accommodate future expansion without rework---CodeHydro 14:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the creators at the top idea, but the video games are still confusing. It should say somehow that they are video games rather than just putting their title. And I still do not really like categorizing the video games by season. It just does not make sense. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The video games are based on each season (plus the movie). I made some minor adjustments. The seasons are fine as the books. I also added a space and reorganized the Book One section. For now, I think it will work. The creators at the top are an excellent idea, may I add. ChaosMaster_Chat 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it to have the years next to the games. That's basically a convention that tells you it's either a game or a film, which even people who know nothing about the series can figure out easy as soon as they click the article anyhow. As for adding the seasons back to the "Series" group, I would think that the redundancy would be helpful for outsiders, and the seasons really don't take up much space (especially if you do the compact way in the first "new version" that I designed. ---CodeHydro 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But nobody is going to know that The Burning Earth is referring to a video game unless they knew beforehand what the game was, which defeats the point of the navbox entirely. Furthermore, while it might make sense to us to put the video games next to the seasons they were based on, a reader is not going to deduce that same fact just because the articles were placed next to their respective seasons. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Parent5446, I completely understand your point, and if I could think of a better way to organize it that would communicate that it is a video game, then I would. But the point is, the main purpose of the navbox is navigation, as it says in the wiki link. It's not the primary job of the navbox (neither the secondary nor the tertiary for that matter) to tell you what the title is about; that's the job of the article itself. Moreover, I have faith that a reader can draw the link between "Book Two: Earth" and "The Burning Earth" as well as "Book Three: Fire" and "Into the Inferno". Even if they don't, it's not exactly going to hurt them. Nonetheless, to prevent confusion among future editors of the navbox, I've added an invisible comment in the navbox that describes why it's broken into books.---CodeHydro 22:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is a better way to organize it: leave the season associations out. No reader is going to need to look for Avatar video games based on a specific season, they just want to see the different video games. Associating them with their seasons is absolutely useless and misleading. The video games should just be but in a video games row. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No reason for the years; click on the link to find that out. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks a little better. I still think the Seasons thing is too confusing. Otherwise, looks good, but why is Appa in the Universe section? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name Toph Bei Fong to Toph?

I think the most notable name for this character is just Toph. She seems to be the only character that's got a full name on the profile. What do you think. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in cases like this, it is just better to keep the full name. The redirect Toph does the job fine for those who don't like full names. —CodeHydro 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Same the other way around too. But since I noticed Wikia does it too I suppose I am ok with it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way they end up in the same place. We could probably go on for weeks arguing which is more proper, but it'd just be a waste of time and effort. :) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Avatar: The Last Airbender articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga

I noticed the articles of Avatar: The Last Airbender type articles are not supported by this WikiProject. I am just wondering if they could be considered part of that project. I know Avatar: The Last Airbender is not really a true anime when considered not being created in Japan and other Asian countries but it has been sort of described as a American anime and it has been designed and inspired by anime as well. Thoughts? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, check their project scope. They only want anime specifically made as anime. Shows, etc. that are simply based on Japanese/anime influences are not included. Conversely, our articles do fall under the American Animation workgroup in the Animation WikiProject. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. Just checking. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello I just made some really good edits to zuko's fire bending abilities (no really not a hacker or anything) but sine bot deleted them, I had tons of stuff like direction of fire bending by duel swords, zuko's incredibly powerful blasts The tornado thing with his feet How he is shown to be able to charge blasts How he can create incredibly powerful fire sheilds How his fire bending is shown to be incredibly accurate when he lights the candles of the fountain in the tales of ba sing se Can someone make these edits who is logged in but make the edits with much better words

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra organization RfC

Hi, members of this task force may be interestested in Talk:The Legend of Korra#RfC: How do we organize the content related to the individual books of The Legend of Korra? and the subsequent two discussions.  Sandstein  21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

This franchise seems like a candidate for inclusion on this list. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)