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

Azulon

• Did anyone else notice Azulon has his own page?Jason Garrick (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete this.

This is a direct copy from the main Avatar: The Last Airbender page. It provides jack squat. I propose we delete it immediately. Y BCZ 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if Zany would stop removing the deletion tag it would be. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They won't speedy it, I'll try PROD. If somebody removes that, though, it'll have to go through AfD. Which is really pretty ridiculous, but it may be needed to keep the red-tapers happy...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reacting with an immediate "This must be deleted" it might be worthwhile to consider your options. For example, you could just create a redirect, if there's an already existing better page, or consider whether or not this page is really a problem. It's certainly not unusual to have separate lists for characters in a televison show or book series. See for example List of Honorverse characters, List of Rugrats characters, List of Simpsons characters, and even video games [List of Metal Gear Solid characters]]. This list, could also, for example, be converted into a summary list for the existing lists, as an aid to navigation. FrozenPurpleCube 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this category might also be informative Category:Lists of fictional characters for even more examples. FrozenPurpleCube 15:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I'm fine with a redirect, but that seems a little cheep, being that its basically deleting the page, anyway. And just FYI: we don't have a single character list because each main character has an article and with have TWO (soon to be more, in fact, one is due for a split) lists already for minor ones. We don't need a list of lists here.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, that's the point. I don't even agree with deletion. The concept itself is real, the content is not a problem , so I don't see a point in deleting. And personally, I consider the size of the character section of the Avatar: the Last Airbender to be large enough in the scope of the article that it might well be worth keeping this one and trimming that section, with further links to the minor pages. Or possibly combining them all here, depending on what people prefer. At the least, a single list with names and brief(one line) descriptions all on one page could be highly useful as a navigational reference.

It's certainly something to think about, not just thrown into the waste bin because you've already got a section. Take a look at the various Television shows at WP:FA. Of the TV shows listed there, I only found two that didn't have a separate character page (Although Cheers is actually to a category, which I think is a bad idea). Firefly which didn't even finish a whole season, and Our Friends in the North which doesn't even have a character section and is only 9 episodes long anyway.

So that's why I think it's worth considering, and instead of looking at this spin-off as an offensive action, take it as an opportunity to improve the presence of Avatar on Wikipedia. I'd understand the level of concern I see here if the article were poorly written, or full of derogatory nonsense, but it's not. It's just a bold attempt at a split. So, think about it in the spirit in which it was meant, a good faith edit with the best interest's of everybody in mind. The worst that happens from mulling this over for a few days or weeks is a few hundred kilobytes extra on Wikipedia's servers. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh gads....fine. Make this even harder on everybody. Anyway, the main articles got the sugeestion template on it, so this SHOULD be a redirect (seems rather silly to have a template suggesting something that's already done). I would, however, like to point out, again, that we already have character lists. Two of them, and a category. We don't need mega-redundancy like this.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you agree discussion is worthwhile, let's hope folks participate in it rather than engage in an edit war. And there's no harm in leaving this page up nor do I imagine folks will be confused (edited for clarity). The question is, will this page remain live, and that's what I'm asking. Let's hope more people participate in it. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm in confusing folk? I can hardly agree with that....--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)}

To be clear, I don't imagine anybody will be harmed or confused. It'd be one thing if this page were trashy, but clearly, it's not. If anybody is truly confused, they need only ask. FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(un-indenting) I really can’t agree with that. We have a tag on one page saying its suggested a section be spilt here. They follow that link, and see that the section already IS here. That would sure as heck confuse me…--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, if anything, I'd see the redirect as confusing, as it'd take me back to where I started, and if I didn't know to click the actual link, I might never see that it was a redirect. If they are confused though, they need only read the discussion and hopefully they'll figure it out. If not, asking "What's going on here" isn't a problem. If you want, I can see if there's some kind of appropriate template to add though. Would that help? FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Y BCZ. This article does not provide any extra information to what is already written on the main page. Redirecting this article to the main article makes sense to me. If you type this into google, the main article comes up anyway. Supertigerman 01:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request: could everybody take any disscusion about the mertis of this page to Talk:Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Splitting_Character_Section? It just makes things easier having it in one place.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor characters

Do we really need each minor character listed here? A simple link to the list would be sufficient, I think.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's appropriate, yes, as it will provide for a more easily referenced index to characters. I also intend to add very short descriptions to that section as well, akin to the ones in the preceding section. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Really seems like over-redundancy to me, in all honesty. Still, if it is to be there, I do think descriptions for minor characters would be overkill. On top of that, many of the entires on the minor characters list could not really be made shorter and provide meaningful information. Perhapses instead just list what episode they were in and link to their entry on the primary list? Seems like that would be more useful as an indexing feature. IE, something like this:

• Chief Arnook ("The Waterbending Master","The Siege of the North")

In my opinion, that provides the reader with identification, without making the list here overly long. It also provides quick accses to the episodes the character was in. Alternatively, we could divide the season sections into sub-sections based on each character's first appearance.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly intended to be accessible, and redundancy is often a part of that. In the case of Chief Arnook I would say something like "Leader of the Northern Water Tribe in ("The Waterbending Master","The Siege of the North")" which would be clear and informative, just in case somebody didn't know what those episodes were about by the title. If you can't write something that long about a character, they don't need an entry. FrozenPurpleCube 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Really seems like more than is needed, to me. If this is to be a clear index, then it should be just that: providing a reader with where they can find information, not providing the information itself.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More information that is needed would be something like "Leader of the NWT, Father of Yune, prayed to the moon spirit to save his daughter's life". Which is still more useful than just his name (which I certainly didn't recall), as I don't think a mere list of names would be useful to folks, while a list of names with a bit of identifiers is. See for example List of fictional countries which is very useful with such information, versus a mere list of names. Think of it like a phone book. A simple list of names expanded into usefulness with addresses and phone numbers. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, this isn't a phone book. A phone book provides information. We already have pages that provide the information, all this needs to do is tell people where to get it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Chief Arnook doesn't tell *me* anything. Or Hakoda. Or any number of other entries. Providing enough to tell folks what it is, though, may be more helpful. FrozenPurpleCube 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See also this page List of characters on The West Wing. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And this one: List of Star Trek Characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The difference is, for all those articles you mentioned, there are no other lists. That's not true here. And really, for someone with no knowledge of the subject, "Leader of the Northern Water Tribe" wouldn't provide anything meaningful, either. We don't need this page to inform. We already have pages that do that perfectly well.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum: You're right, "Chief Arnook" doesn't tell you anything. "Chief Arnook", on the other hand, does: it tells you where you can go to find out about Chief Arnook.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But what if I don't know it's Chief Arnook I'm looking for? Sure, I could go to this other page, and see if that's what I want, but then I might be scrolling around for a while. If Leader of the Northern Water Tribe doesn't say enough, then perhaps you could suggest something similarily brief to inform folks that would be more informative? FrozenPurpleCube 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just the issue: there really is no way I can see to provide meaningful information while restricted to something that brief. Anything that short is going to be meaningless without prior knowledge of the subject. And honestly, I don't see a need to scroll on a page to find what you want that big a deal. Also, it may be relevant to point out that there's a discussion underway now about spiting the minor characters page up to make it less confusing.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that if you don't have some basic knowledge of the subject, this list may not help, but a short description is still better than a name without description. The extra cost in disk space is nil, if it doesn't help, you can go to that other page. And thanks for bringing the other situation to my attention, I'll look into it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Colons getting out of hand. Manticore the people who do have knowledge of the show don't need this list. If they want to look up a minor character they'll more than likely know that that character isn't a major character and just use the key on that page. So if the list doesn't help the unknowing or the knowing what is the point of it?

H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't agree that short descriptions are better than none. If we want this to be useful for navigation, the page should be clean, otherwise it doesn't offer anything over the other lists. I'd really think of it like a paper encyclopedia's index: just a volume and page number. Saying which episodes the character was in is really all the description that should be there.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you say way a short description is worse than none though? It may not help you, but I know it would help me, much more than just listing the episodes someone was in. This would especially be helpful if somebody was in a lot of episodes, but still a minor character. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

SBecause we don't know what level of knowledge a person might have, it's best to err on the side of assisting people the most. I think including that information here is more helpful, and not a problem. Can you explain why it's a problem? FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a problem because it clutters the page needlessly. As far as I can see, the entire point of having this page here is navigation. We should be aiming for a clean, uncomplicated list linking to the real content, otherwise we might as well just merge the other page to here (which, just to be clear, would be a monumentally bad idea.)--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(disindenting). Yes, too much clutter is a bad thing. So is too little information. I think one short sentence is not too much to ask. That's not clutter, that's information. It's a balancing act, and I'd rather balance in favor of helping folks more, which I think a brief description does. Heck, I don't like the list of names of real people that don't describe them. Maybe an RFC would get more input? FrozenPurpleCube 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise not even an option, huh? Fine then, looks like an RFC would be the only recourse.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but have I made the changes I have advocated? No, I have not taken action, because this discussion is not resolved yet. I have refrained out of courtesy, and respect. Is seeking further opinion so anathema to you that it is more offensive? The fact is, you haven't persuaded me, I haven't persuaded you. I don't think that's going to change. Thus I feel it's a good idea to seek some outside perspective. Can you explain how it's a bad thing? FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, all I'm saying is this: up until a few weeks ago, we always managed to settle this sort of thing through discussions and compromise. Now that's changed. Draw your own conclusions.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ZING! H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And we're still discussing this, aren't we? Perhaps you have been used to an insular group that goes in a certain way almost naturally, but that can often become a problem, as when others bring in their ideas, there is a reaction against intruders. In any case, can you provide examples of where I've made any personal attacks? Have I been rude or uncivil? I can't say the same for others though. The comment right above mine is quite uncivil I'd say, and there are numerous others. You think I'm a problem, I think there's a problem elsewhere. However, instead of continuing to personalize this issue, let's discuss the subject at hand. Can we do that instead? FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past 3 weeks when has compromise ever been the option? Manticore must somehow make sure he gets his way. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:Civil and WP:NPA. BTW, before you make that change to a simple alphabetical list, you might want to solicit feedback yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that on the RfC. I just looked into this a bit more, and it seems a third opinion might be good to try first, see if that can come to a conclusion acceptable to both of us. I'd also like to say, in case this gets acted on quickly, that is currently two in the morning where I live, so I won't be online long after this post.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion, RFC, same difference. It's all about getting some perspective. And there's not going to be any precipitous action on my part. I even reverted a change I consider too abrupt. I don't necessarily disagree, but if the minor characters page is split by book, it would be a real hassle to edit the links here. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyre, just let it go man, Manticore clearly doesn't even read any of our counter arguments to anything he suggests. Not sure why you would want to do that extra work when it's already been done on other pages. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, you might wish to review the WP:NPA policy. Also WP:AGF. If your perception of me is that negative, it'll seriously make this discussion difficult to resolve. FrozenPurpleCube 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I think it's customary, when linking to the "main article" describing a subheading, that at least a summary of that main article be described under the link. It's rather jarring to see a subheading with only a link and no prose beneath it. I think it's entirely appropriate for the list of minor characters to be formatted as the list above it (secondary major characters), with one short summary sentence per character. A reader can always go to the main article for more detail about each character. I note the main article for minor characters contains a lot of detail, so it should be no problem (albeit a bit of effort) to give 1 sentence bullet summaries for each character in this article.

I don't know how dynamic the list of minor characters is. If it's likely to grow and be hard to maintain, you don't want to be maintaining a list in two articles. In that case, a link to the minor characters article could be put under a "See also" heading.

The question of whether unstable content even belongs in Wikipedia is for another third opinion :). -Amatulic 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually does highlight one point I hadn't considered: this list will indeed become dynamic when the next season starts, and maintaining a list on two pages may not be entirely practical.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know that it's especially unstable or likely to be expanded too quickly. Characters are added at most a few per episode, with often a week (or more!) between them. In terms of maintenance, I don't see it as an especially large problem. Then again, there is always the solution of combining the pages. Of course, there are people who are opposed to the idea of a list of characters at all, so who knows? FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion though. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we at least place a small, probably 2-3 sentense description on the list of characters. Info-haters already:

• • Deleted each character picture.
  • Deleted each character descripcion.
  • Maybe they'll delete the whole list next time.

Dar book (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Having the minor characters split by book does not allow people to search the list for a specific character any easier. If someone wants to look up Hakoda they might not know where to look and would have to look through two lists instead of one. You're looking for it to be helpful, having them divided doesn't do ANYTHING that the minor characters page doesn't already do in it's key. Also when you reverted my edits you killed a few fixed links and put the list back in disorder (For instance, I don't think I comes before B in season 2). H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they know the name they're looking for, they can just type Ctrl-F to search for it. So I don't see that as much of an issue. Still, I'm not opposed to the idea. It would be easy enough to include the information as part of the description. However, if the minor characters page is broken up by season, I do think that would create an issue for this page, as it would require some back and forth editing to get the links right. So I think it might be best to wait till that's decided. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to fix any broken links or alphabetizations, that level of editing would not be a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, if ctrl+F is the answer, what is the point of this page? Couldn't they just ctrl+F on the minor characters page? What if they don't know how to spell the name and only know what it sounds like? Find doesn't work at all in that situation. The Wikiproject for Avatar knows quite well what characters are second season and which are first, I doubt there would be any actual problem when editing the links here it's all cut and paste. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who said they were looking for a name. To be honest, I don't think that people will look for names, I'd actually say that's less likely to be helpful on its own, and that's why I think descriptions are important but if they do, unfortunately, there's several pages to look through, which was the point of this one page. And given the proposal to split the other page, it's even more important. As far as it goes, it might even be worth breaking away from the sections and just list all the characters in an alphabetical list, from Aang to Zuko. Not sure of that though. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think an alphabetical sorting will be rather useful after the changes to the primary list go through. If both are split by season, somebody would be rather stuck if they didn't know which season to look at.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a straight A-Z listing of all characters might not be a bad idea, now that I think about it. If the idea is to eliminate the navigational problems posed by multiple pages, dividing them in the same way those pages are doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That would work for me, though I think it's worth deciding whether or not the minor characters page is going to be broken up by season before making those edits. FrozenPurpleCube 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that all the pages are done are we in concensus to make the minor characters one big list in alphabetical order? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

This is just a personal opinion but I think the relationships aren't really needed for the character pages. It seems since the relationship pages were created, it has only sprouted more controversy on what is considered a relationship, and what is merely fandom. Especially with an up and coming season, the character pages (Main Zuko's and Aang's) are far too long and the character relationships is the only reasonable thing to cut out. Lionheart08 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting issue, but it probably needs to be taken to those pages. FrozenPurpleCube 19:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd avoid making blanket decisions on a matter like this, best to go at it on a case-by-case basis.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, just so you know, AfD is not a vote, thus it's not a question of numbers, but rather discussion. More importantly though, this is not the proper place to share this anyway, you really want to try: The actual deletion discussion page— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs)

Oh, my vote was moved - LastAirbender

Plan for this page

Ok, so there still remains opposition to this page, I do think it's in need of some improvement, and a plan in place to how this page will be shaped. Since apparently the idea of this page mirroring the main show page is not accepted, I decided to go with the idea of having very short descriptions in place. Enough of a description to identify the character is all that I feel is needed, instead of a long descriptive paragraph. Eventually this should be expanded to the entire list, not just the Main and major secondary characters. If you don't like that, then please write here what you do want, and why. FrozenPurpleCube 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the main characters section is not alphabetized. Does anybody think that should be done? FrozenPurpleCube 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As per the latter, no, it would put Azula as second and I think it should be listed by importance for those characters. It's divided nicely between Good and Bad right now. As per the former, I don't want to see short descriptions of all the minor characters because I like the way it is columnized right now. Since we now have the minor characters page split in half I'd like to merge the list of Book 1 and Book 2 so that it actually serves a purpose to people who only know the name of the character and not where they appear in the new lists (Bumi for example). Without them being one list it's hard to add in the "recurring characters" page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with listing by importance is that possibly creates a problem in deciding who is important. I don't know that that is a serious problem, but there are folks who may object. Another option to consider is by order of appearance, though I do think Aang should be kept first. And I can support the revision of the minor characters into a simple alphabetical list. Might even support moving the whole list into an alphabetical one if that's what others want.

Besides that, what do you feel about the main characters section? How should it be presented? Shorter? Longer? Pictures? No picture? Mirror of the section on the TV show page? FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance is easy. Aang, Katara, Sokka are the easy first three. Toss up between Toph and Appa (who still needs added) next. I'd go Toph then Appa so that Appa becomes the divider. That covers the good guys and the main characters in each episode (cept Alone). Zuko and Iroh as main secondary villians/heros. Then you got Azula as the only one left. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, why is Katara more important than Sokka? And why the arbitrary separation by good guys and not-so-bad guys? Believe it or not, I see a lot of complaints that saying somebody is a supervillain is a POV problem...so it may come up here. And what if someone else becomes more important? But that's only one part of the questions I asked anyway. What do you feel about the other stuff? FrozenPurpleCube 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I'd rather make this page sort of like an index: straight alphabetical listing of all the characters, no separation. My concern is, if a reader needs help because they don't know where on the primary lists to look, using the same divisions as those pages might not be very helpful.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like good reasoning to me, and if that were done, I'd suggest short one or two sentence descriptions of the characters to go with it. FrozenPurpleCube 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This page exists!

I've been working on the Avatar WikiProject for a while and I never realized this page existed. Now I really feel blind. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here..... Is this in the template? I thought I clicked them all.... Rau's Speak Page 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor secondary

Is there a need for that section? It's just a list of names, nothing more. Rau's Speak Page 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be as there used to be the recurring character page. Now... not so much. Derekloffin (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, this isn't about that. This existed when they were around. That section is essentially every named character in the show. Rau's Speak Page 23:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it has been a week and no one has commented, I am removing them from the article. Rau's Speak Page 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I see why it was gond. And the funny thing is the recurring character section is back. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fire Lord Ozai

Although this character has played a fairly indirect role throughout the series, he is essentially the main antagonist of it. I was curious if as to whether or not this character could be considered notable enough to be deserving of having his own article. Given the comparitive lack of screen time that Ozai has had in comparison to other characters, it would seem as though such an article could potentially be little more than a summary of his appearences in the show, I'm not sure if such a character could carry a seperate article. To be clear, I am not trying to put forth an arguement as to why Ozai should or should not be given a seperate article, rather I am only trying to determine as to whether or not editors think that it satisfies WP:FICT. 66.24.238.22 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He cannot support his own article. There is simply not enough real world information about him. But he can support a section in this list. Rau's Speak Page 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible. See here. References would be nice though. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jet's death

Who deleted the link pertaining to Jet's fate? It was stated in both a Scifi Article and at last year's Comic Con that he died from his injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.96.51 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that link was ever on this page. It was on the old major secondary characters page, which was deleted entirely. Derekloffin (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this seems to keep coming up again and again, can someone please produce this reference? Currently it says he's dead (which I tend to believe), but without a reference to this, its going to be a persistent issue. Derekloffin (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In the episode before "sozens comet" they showed a play

zuko:did jet just...die?

sokka:no it was really unclear what happened to him.

So there's no official information saying he died or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The last writer has a good point (although he/she could have explained his/her point better). Jet's death was not seen, nor was it later confirmed. Although it can be assumed that his survival was unlikely, it was never confirmed or denied. Besides, if he was killed, we wouldn't know who killed him, so the page shouldn't say that he was killed by Long Feng (his death could have been done by a Dai-Li agent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Zhao

Was it the ocean spirit that killed him or was it Aang in the Avatar state? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was the ocean spirit. As I recall Aang had left the Avatar state at that point. Derekloffin (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It was The Ocean Spirit, but only because it was possessing Aang's Avatar State. Aang doesn't kill. Also, this isn't a forum. Although, this is probably the best place to ask this because most of us have a near-round knowledge of the Avatar Universe. Rau's Speak Page 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aang doesn't like to kill, but he has done it before (that giant wasp he killed in the desert) and is prepared to do it again (in the most recent commercial that have Aang saying he will kill the Fire Lord).Adroa (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Fir Lord is on another level, its kill or be killed with that. And the Wasp provoked it. Zhao was just over there chillin, killin the moon spirit. He never attacked Aang during that fight. Either way, this isn't the place for this. Rau's Speak Page 01:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Suki

I think that "Suki" is now a major character, now that she has been rescued and is back in the series. Usercreate (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, at the initial release of Boiling Rock, but it never went anywhere. I think she should be though. Rau's Speak Page 04:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to come up with a lot of information on Suki. But if anyone should want to start before me, here are the some more characteristics of Suki.

• Weapon Specialist (Fans, Shield, Sword)
• Fist to Fist specialist
• Leader of the Kyoshi Warriors
• Amazing Agility
• Used to wear make-up and warrior's robe
• Romantic interest in Sokka
• Second in command of Kyoshi Island

Use these examples as the keys of the page. Usercreate (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have created a page on Suki. Usercreate (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

June

Aren't secondary characters included in the list if they've appeared in more than one season? June has now appeared in Season 1 and the Season 3 finale. DanMat6288 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New rules. We go by importance. That's why Yue, Zhao, and Long Feng appear. You are thinking of the old lists. Rau's Speak Page 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering her importance for finding Iroh, I would say, she should be included, since without Iroh the finale would have gone other ways. I could do the work of including her, but only when there is consensus that she should be included, that is... Dietmar Lettau (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mechanist

I am not convinced by the list of secondary characters. We have major secondary characters (Mai, Ty Lee), alongside relative minor ones like the Mechanist. They really shouldn't be in the same category. Out of all the ones in that list, he's the one that seems most out of place. I don't think he should be here. Fishhook (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, I won't object if you remove him. Rau's Speak Page 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, The Mechanist has contributed a lot to the overall plot, such as the war balloons, the waterbending subs, and Aang's new glider. DanMat6288 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the Mechanist being a major character. Sure, he invented a lot of things, but as a character, I don't think he did much to the overall plot. Personally, I believe characters like Ursa, Gyatso, and Combustion Man have had a much bigger impact on the plot than the mechanist has. Actually, I once saw them on the list, but someone took them off. Don't know why though. 71.168.87.83 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Fantasy Leader

Because they aren't major secondary characters. They are recurring characters. Rau's Speak Page 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But what about Bumi? Does he really qualify as a major character? Cause I wasn't really sure about him either. 71.168.87.83 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Fantasy Leader

Nope. Bumi really isn't either. Rau's Speak Page 23:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Combustion Man

Is he really a major secondary character? I mean, he added nothing to the show. Nothing is known about him, other than he always looks constipated. Does he really belong? Rau's Speak Page 13:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so. Number of appearances does not a significant character make. As you say, we know nothing about him other than what is said on nick.com. His entire character is almost a plot summary and frankly has more to do with other characters than him. Derekloffin (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Originally you wouldn't think so when there was another section but since there is only an Major Recurring section that's where he fits it since he is an recurring character in Season 3. His story should be simple though stating that he is an quite assasin hired to take down the Avatar by Zuko, just state his power and that's about it. No need for an plot summary. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Major secondary characters

Shouldn't Mai, Ty Lee, Suki, Jet, Avatar Roku and Momo have their own articles. It just doesn't seem right for Appa to have one while the other really major secondary characters. It doesn't seem right. And who deleted their pages anyway adn why? Elemental5293 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Characters get pages when they have 3rd party references. As you can see, so far, no one has come up with any for these guys. If you can, bring them along, till then any page is just asking to get deleted under wikipedia rules. Derekloffin (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Elemental5293 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Under wikipedia rules, all individual pages must establish their notability. To do so, they must have substantial 3rd party references (ie, not from the show itself, or from derivative work of the show). For example, from Aang's article, he has references from animation insider, toon zone, sci fi weekly, and ign. He also has lots of non-in universe stuff from the commentary and from nick mag and such. If you can come up with references of similar quality for these character, add them in to the article here, and if we get enough, then we can make new pages for them, otherwise the deletionists will just get rid of them in short order. Derekloffin (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Momo now has his own article because of notability but yes he does need third party references and I am not sure of how that works in television. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Character Descriptions

the way this person laid out the character list, looks horrible. i read it, and each description is vague, its like someone copied it directly from the reference. there's not enough information, the characters' name and description isn't properly spaced.

"the guru" i mean, i expected a little more. you cant tell who these characters are (the minor and major), you only know what they did, there's no personality description, there's not even a visual description.

And why list the episode of when an event happened and what style of martial art they use? I don't mind the martial art but listing the episode of the event relating to the character isn't describing the character itself.

this page needs serious clean up.Haseo445 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's on my list of projects to do, but I'm working on a "Universe article" (User:NuclearWarfare/Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender) right now. If you want, you can help with this one; that's how all of our pages grow. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to, but its a bit hard, especially how the wording is.Haseo445 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup on most of the main characters the real problem seems to be people are trying to cover the highlights of the characters over three seasons. That's what the in-depth article is for. Just give who they are, what they do and why they're important to the story.Skyrocket (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor secondary characters

I think that this should be removed and a few should be moved to just secondary characters. My suggestion would include King Bumi, Fire Lord Sozin, and Monk Gyatso. Possibly Master Pakku, Master Piandao, or Jeong Jeong. Additionally, Mai and Ty Lee need some cutting down. What do you say? --haha169 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to bring this up in a few days, but since you've brought it up already: I'd save just save King Bumi and that is it. Sozin and Monk Gyatso could be kept, but with limited visibility in the series, they'd be restricted to a couple liners each. Adding Avatar Roku somewhere would probably be good too. The rest aren't worth keeping IMO; it took me forever to even remember who Master Piandao is. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Generic Anime Heroine?

That quote is used like it's a good thing. To me it seems somewhat derogatory to a character who is anything but generic. That should really be removed from Katara's section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dignan17 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While I may disagree with the sentiment of the quote, and agree with you that it sounds rather negative, we're not here as Katara's publicists. That actually was said about her character in a referenced fairly major website so it should be kept. Derekloffin (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merchandise

I was talking to a friend (who unfortunately has RTV'd) and he suggested that we add a "Merchandise" section like List of Naruto characters has (but probably at least two paragraphs). There is a bunch of good information in the Avatar: the Last Airbender article; would you, haha169, or anyone else be willing to stitch together a section? NW (Talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try, but the following was the only paragraph that I could make from the information readily available. There is a site called 'avatartoys.com', hosted by Nick, but the flash is broken for me. Maybe you could try it out? --haha169 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattel was in charge of producing an action figure toy line for the series, though it generated some controversy with its exclusion of any female characters. Mattel came to release information stating that they have taken account of Katara's increased role within the program, and that she would be included in the figure assortment for a mid 2007 release. The figure ultimately went unreleased, however, as the entire line was canceled before she could be produced.

The fourth paragraph of the lead, "Merchandise based on the series includes scaled action figures,[11] a trading card game,[12][13] three video games based on the first,[14] second,[15][16] and third seasons, stuffed animals distributed by Paramount Parks, and two LEGO sets.[17]" also seems like it could be promising.

The avatartoys.com site seems like it is just a site that redirects people to a variety of stores (KMart, ToysRUs, etc.) I can definitely access it, but my internet access is pretty bad, and it is taking far too long for "Caching images" to finish. NW (Talk) 22:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Same with me, except my internet speed is incredibly fast, and it still won't cache the images. So I guess we could ignore that site. I'll take a look at those cites.--haha169 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit I've taken a look at those cites - 11 and 17 are seemingly the only ones that fit into the "characters" category. #11 has no such thing - 17 is talking about video games. --haha169 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Recurring" Characters

There are plenty of recurring characters not mentioned on the list. I understand they aren't notable enough, but the section shouldn't be called "Recurring Characters" if only some are listed there. How about something like "Major Recurring Characters"? -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Changed to so. NW (Talk) 04:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese names for the main characters

Someone asked on the Aang talkpage about adding the chinese name for Aang on the Aang page. I'm thinking the same thing. To support my stand, I give the following points:

1) The chinese names (like 安昂 for Aang and 蘇科 for Zuko) are canonical since they appear on the show.

2) Although the characters may speak English, the Avatar world is set in a Chinese/Japanese location (hence the Chinese/Kanji in every piece of writing we've seen). So in a way it seems a little strange that we are not mentioning the characters' chinese names at all.

3) In fact if I'm not wrong, the names we know like "A-a-n-g" and "K-a-t-a-r-a" don't even appear on the show; their names have only ever appeared as chinese characters.

I have given my arguments. However, I have a feeling there is a reason why up until now there's no inclusion of the chinese names on their character pages. Is there a clause in the Manual of Style for writing about fiction that says this information is considered in-universe and thus not appropriate for inclusion?--Secretss (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Appa and momo are not just a bison and lemur respectively.

I just saw in book 1 water, the 4th disc with the featurette w/ the creators, that appa is a bison crossed with a manatee, and momo is a lemur crossed w/ some type of bat....It needs to be corrected saying in the show they're only referred to as a bison and lemur.

75.72.205.243 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag necessary for common language knowledge?

I disagree with edits like these claiming that a citation is needed for everyday language use. Everyday words, and their meanings in widely-spoken languages, are instances of common knowledge and should not need a special citation. There appears to be no definitive policy/guideline statement on this, but there are several useful precedents--brief mention at WT:Common knowledge#Common usage of words in a foreign language, the "Subject-specific common knowledge" line of Wikipedia:When to cite, not to mention that Chinese classifier made FA with scores of Chinese words and translations and not a single source for any of them. I think the {{fact}} tag in this article is unnecessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that it wouldn't hurt to source it (too many citation will rarely hurt the article), but this might be something to raise at Wikipedia talk:Common knowledge or Wikipedia talk:When to cite to get wider input. NW (Talk) 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop some links over there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Prove to me that Chinese is an "everyday language" that your common English speaker knows. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles and not really directly addressing one another, so I'll continue trying to seek outside input. But in answer to your question, Mandarin is the most widely-spoken language on the planet and Chinese characters are one of the most widely-used writing systems. And, if you looked at the link I gave to "subject-specific common knowledge", you would understand my argument--that not every English speaker needs to know it for it to be "common knowledge", but that anyone with even rudimentary familiarity with any Chinese language (or Japanese or Korean) can recognize this character. And, like I already said, simple dictionary translations like this are not controversial or likely to be challenged. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question regarding the average English speaker knowing Chinese. Yes, there are a billion Chinese, but there are 6.7 billion people on the planet and not all of them can speak Chinese. Remember, this is English Wikipedia. A simple citation from an online dictionary will suffice.

The link you gave does not say anything about language. It just states something that is universal, like a processor powers a computer, should not be challenged. Chinese is not common knowledge to all. You have to understand that people regularly vandalize Wikipedia. Whose to say some numb nut won't change the character to something vulgar and then some uninitiated editor will come along and take it at face value. The total lack of citations in many wikipedia articles is why no one takes it as a serious scholarly source. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your WP:3O request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian who is considering accepting your request for a Third Opinion, but from reading this discussion and the diff included above, I am uncertain whether the dispute is over (a) whether any language link should be included at all or (b) whether the link should be to Standard Mandarin or to Chinese language. Please clarify. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is over whether translations of random foreign language characters should be cited or not. I have to leave, so I won't be able to reply to any further discussion until later today. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) with the other 3O reponse. While User:TransporterMan got here first and should handle the 3O, I would suggest that using a simple link to Wiktionary might be enough to satisfy both sides here. Would editing the sentence in question to the following satisfy both parties?

The word Yue (月) means "moon" in Chinese.

If this is sufficient, just copy the text to the article. Personally, I would consider it to be an improvement for the readers. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me since wiktionary has sources for the characters. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your WP:3O request: Since it appears that the dispute is settled, I will decline to issue any opinion. Best of luck. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Casting controversy?

Why is that even on this page. This is about the series, not the movie, I'm going to take it out, seeing as it doesn't belong here. --Jason Garrick (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says "The Avatar: The Last Airbender animated television series and live-action film adaptation, The Last Airbender, features an extensive cast of characters created by Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino". That's enough for me to say we should include it. NW (Talk) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The casting controversy is inherently important to the ongoing debate about the characters' ethnicities; their characteristics and how they should be portrayed. --haha169 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is called "Avatar: The Last Airbender characters." "Avatar: The Last Airbender" is not the movie, anything about the movie should not be in the article. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the title of the article matters much in this case. It would be impractical to title the article "Avatar: the Last Airbender and the Last Airbender characters." Now, that said, there actually is already an article for The Last Airbender casting controversy so the section may actually be redundant here. Derekloffin (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, amending what I just said just slightly, the page referenced is up for deletion, being considered for redirect to the casting section of the last airbender movie article. That seems the most appropriate place, currently, for the section. Derekloffin (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The information in this section is already covered in the casting section on the movie page. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely so. In fact, with the exception a few mutual quotes used, the one on this list actually seems more comprehensive and updated. Besides, this is enhancing public reaction towards the casting decisions. Additionally, the Last Airbender article merely speaks of "casting" and includes a single paragraph on the issue. This, being a character list, delves more in-depth about the character casting choices and its reactions and its consequences. I wouldn't object to a "see also" though. --haha169 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've been looking at a few other character lists and it is quite apparent that a casting section is in most of them, even while the parent article also has a casting section. It isn't redundant because character list casting sections (or in this case, controversy), although I was thinking of adding a casting section (opinions?), describe the casting choices and its connections to the characters, while the article casting sections usually describe the process, the choices, everything in a broad sense. --haha169 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, there is no reason to talk about the movie in this article, but if it has to be in, the section should be on casting, not controversy. If there is just controversy then it is a violation of NPOV.

Even if there are different quotes on this page than on the casting section of the movie page, the same information is covered. There doesn't need to be a second section. -Dylan0513 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is located as a subsection of "Reception", as a way to highlight distaste as well as defense of the casting choices, so I don't think it is much of a NPOV issue. I think there should be an overall casting section too; Glee and Lost both have them. The movie is mentioned and acknowledged in this list because it is canon and is part of the series. After all, the co-creators of the cartoon are executive producers of the film. Leaving it out would be similar to an article on Star Wars yet completely leaving out the canon Star Wars: Clone Wars cartoon made by Lucasfilm.

Addressing your concern about having a second section. Is it really redundant? Not exactly. As I've said before, this section is far more comprehensive and provides for an overall analysis on (what is now) consumer backlash and studio defense of the casting choices. It is focused primarily on reception of the casting and the back-and-forth arguments. The article, on the other hand, merely skirts the issue with one paragraph. After all, the article is more broad and discusses about the casting as a whole, as it should. This is why some sections have a "see also" template, to connect inter-related sections between articles. --haha169 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The reception section isn't about the movie casting, it's about the show's characters. There needs to be a casting section or else it violated NPOV like it does now. -Dylan0513 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Casting controversy isn't inherently about the casting either. Its about the race of those casted, and how there are concerns about it in relation to the original source material. And besides, you are still treating it as if the movie doesn't belong in the list. We could argue about that - but IF the movie were to belong in the list, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning the reception of the film's characters in the reception section. Note: Would you agree that casting controversy belongs in the "casting section"? Because I could make one and combine them. --haha169 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if there has to be anything about the movie I think it should be in a "casting" section. That way the POV is neutral. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So its neutral that we can completely ignore how people react to the film's characters? --haha169 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: All right, I've got an idea. We'll create a casting section and combine it with the controversy. Alternately, we'll add subsections to the reception section titled 'cartoon' and 'film'. When the film is released, there will be tons of reception on the acting performances and the depths of the film's characters, and we can expand that way. Is that okay with you? --haha169 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy is part of the casting so no, we wouldn't be ignoring it. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, take a look at what I've done. Tell me what you think. Also, once early reviews and other reception-material come flowing in, what do you think should be done about the film's reception? Acting? Costumes? Everything? We are treading in relatively new waters, since few character lists are up to this standard and none are a cartoon/live-action hybrid series. --haha169 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I still see little point to the movie parts already in this article. I think whatever is added, we need to be sure it is not already covered in the movie article. There's no point in having it in two places. -Dylan0513 (talk)

I still think it is relevant. The articles on Catholicism and Baptism should both include Jesus' history in them. It won't do to say that the Catholicism article already covers Jesus' history, so Baptism's article won't need to cover it. --haha169 (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's because Jesus' history is a major part of both of those subjects. Casting in the movie isn't a major part of an article on the list of characters in the cartoon. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really talking about casting anymore? I thought we agreed on that. To clarify: I was questioning what we should include for the movie's section in character reception. --haha169 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing against adding any movie information, including the movie reception. -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Reception to the film's depiction of the characters are inherently important to the character's list. The film itself is canon, if not simply a remake in a sense, but it is definitely canon. Its executive producers include DiMartino and Konietzko. I don't see any reason why material from the film(s) shouldn't be in the list. --haha169 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's the list of "Avatar: the Last Airbender" characters, not "The Last Airbender" characters. Just because Mike and Bryan are exec-producers, doesn't mean it's canon. The movie's plotline will differ from the show's, it's a completely different canon. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Same series, perhaps a remake, but in essence the same thing. Creating "List of The Last Airbender characters" would be repeating pretty much everything that is on this list, and besides, you can't ignore everything from the film. --haha169 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to ignore it, it just doesn't belong in this article. Seriously though, movie isn't canon. Stuff on Aang here doesn't necessarily apply to the movie. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, this is going back and forth. Personal experience is that it is rather impossible to convince the other party in situations like this. I think we need some third party opinions. --haha169 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wish I could help much, but I'm divided. The question really comes down to should this page be exclusive to the animation, or is it about the franchise in general. That in mind, I don't think the title of the article matters in that decision (it would simply be clumsy to try an make it inclusive in the title for both and there are many example of multi-media pages that only explicitly mention the 1 in the article title). The direct character articles pointed to are most likely going to be primarily animation related but will mention the movie too so that leans towards inclusive. However, by the same token, the movie article itself might be the better spot for a character listing, which leans towards the two being kept separate. Sadly, that leaves me undecided. Derekloffin (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture not by Avatar creator

The picture with this caption "This sketch by Bryan Konietzko depicts the early designs of, from left to right, Sokka, Katara, Aang, Zuko, Toph, and Azula," while awesome, is not by Bryan Koneitzko. It's by a deviantart user named Eisu. Someone take this into consideration please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.153.88 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that true? I found it on a news site captioned as such. But if your information is true, I will remove the image. --haha169 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would wait until the anon provides proof. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked for my own proof. Google eisu and I found this: [1], a colored version of what we saw. Besides, Deviant Art users don't generally post copyvios...looks legit enough, imo. Best stay on the cautious side. --haha169 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Several Additional Discussions

See [2]. NW (Talk) 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)