FANDOM


Earth Kingdom box This is a page archive.

Please do not add or remove any content from it. (121,524 bytes)

  • Discussions on the current project page will be moved here upon their resolution.

New Series Ideas: Talk Page Edit

Meridianhawkins (a new user) recently created this page. I was going to add this to the speedy deletion category but some people might get upset. I personally don't think it takes much discussion to come to the conclusion that this page should be deleted. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 12:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That… Urgh. Cant people read the post on the Main Page! For crying out loud. It said not to paste theories here. And to go to the Avatar fanon Wiki for that stuff. I'm deleting it. and yes it does go into the speedy deletions category. If any admin feels different simply recover the page. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 12:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That was some swift action Zero. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well, you know. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, but the discussion for that page still remains: Talk:New series Ideas: Talk page. This needs to go with it. Thanks. Joey - Talk Contribs 23:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Joey - Talk Contribs 10:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Duel in the Tea Shop Edit

I thought most of us agreed on not having whole articles for minor "Duels" or fights or whatever you want to call them. AlexTalk 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That was the point of creating Coup of Ba Sing Se! There's no point to pages like these, it makes the wiki really messy. Unless we want to change the policy, I say we delete this. Puragus Talk 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way I just want to point out, SuperFlash101 created this article and he was all gun-ho for duel pages from the beginning. And thank you Puragus! Finally somebody agrees with me! AlexTalk 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, lots of people agree with you Alex. The policy is that we will not have pages for every individual duel, and so this article should be deleted as per that policy. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 02:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a policy? The duel, if you actually even bothered to read the article, was important to the Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se. It lead to Jet's brainwashing and death, but you guys never seem to care about that. Every time, no one agrees with me. Everybody thinks that if it wasn't super important, but every duel had some importance to something. But I know I'm going to loose this argument, like every other one in this stinkin' wiki. Whatever. --SuperFlash101 15:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand that a battle like this doesn't accurately get placed into the same category as a major war battle like the "Battle for the Northern Air Temple" or "The Invasion". Are we going to be able to go to the Fire Nation school seen in "The Headband" and pick up a textbook and open to the great "Duel in the Tea Shop"? No. Energybender 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted because it's not important, there's nothing major about this article it's just a minor duel. There should be an article that is more interesting like the Invasion of the Fire Nation and Battle at Wulong Forest. Zukofan123Talk 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

SuperFlash, we just get angry because you don't even try to reason with us. Just please at least try to hear what we are saying and maybe we could come to a compromise. AlexTalk 17:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you guys merge it with the Coup of Ba Sing Se as a minor battle leading up to the events of the Coup? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 10:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be a merge. From a strategic viewpoint, it isn't extremely important, and would only get a few sentences in the Coup of Ba Sing Se article, if even that. Otherwise, we'll have a paragraph about...well...not much really. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 13:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet it will be there. I dont get it. Its the perfect solution to this problem. Come on, take it! I'll even give the chain of events here. The Duel in the Tea Shop Led to Jet being arrested, which led to him being used to get rid of Team Avatar, which in turn led to the discovery of the Dai Li Secret Headquaters which led to the return of Appa (indirectly), which led to the assault on the Earth Palace, which led to the revelation of the truth to the Earth King, which led to the imprisonment of Long Feng, which led to Long Feng trying to regain control of Ba Sing Se and that finally led to the Coup and the eventual defeat of Long Feng by Azula. See. Its all here. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 17:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you read the article, you'll see this was BEFORE the Coup. It was during the CONSPIRACY OF BA SING SE, if you guys still remember that. It was kinda longer than the Coup, about as long as Kuei was born. Now, calmed down slightly, let me voice my opinion: I believe that it would be a nice and fun addition to the wiki to include battles and duels. Now, this duel was important because it led to Jet's brainwashing. This was, maybe not as important to you as it is to me, important to at least poor Jet. I mean, you have to see me there. --SuperFlash101 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

SuperFlash, the Duel in the Tea Shop may have been important to Jet, but as Energybender said, no-one is going to pick up a textbook and be able to read about it, because it is not important strategically. However, I will accept Zero's proposal to give the duel a few sentences on the Coup page, because it is an event that led up to the Coup. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a "History" section in the Coup page, about the events that lead up to it. This could go there. Puragus Talk 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I added this info to Coup of Ba Sing Se. It doesn't matter whether the Duel in Tea Shop page is deleted or not, the info will be there on the Coup page. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I take it your guys DON'T care about the obviously longer and just as interesting Conspiracy, I take it. --SuperFlash101 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SuperFlash, please at least try to reason with us. AlexTalk 23:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SuperFlash, your "Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se" really is just the same thing as the Coup of Ba Sing Se, because they are inter-related. Azula infiltrated Ba Sing Se with Mai and Ty Lee and brought about a coup etc. Battles/Fights/Events that had the same strategic purpose (in this case, the most recent (and successful) attempt to take Ba Sing Se) and were at a similar or same place should be on the same page. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

888 is right and I couldn't have said it any better myself. AlexTalk 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What!?! That's absolutely wrong. They were NOT the same ONCE SO EVER! Different times, different reason, and completely different "strategies." I can't even believe you'd say that, it's so wrong. --SuperFlash101 18:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that last comment. I just lost it when I read that. But, here: The two were not the same at all really, since they happened at different times, were for completely different reasons (i.e, the Conspiracy was to make everybody calm and not think about the war, and the Coup was to concur the Earth Kingdom and Ba Sing Se, and win the War), and had a very, VERY different way it went through to accomplish. The Conspiracy came about just before the Coup. Also, I think the comment earlier about not seeing the "great duel" in the book was kinda harsh. But anyways, I believe this will be resolved once the discussion on the Coup and Conspiracy is over, because I'm find with merging, only if it's with the Conspiracy, though. --SuperFlash101 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So, the "Conspiracy" you are referring to is Long Feng's Conspiracy to control Ba Sing Se, and Keep everyone in the dark about the war? Puragus Talk 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. What did you think I meant? --SuperFlash101 22:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've got a compromise. How about we create an article about the "Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se" involving Long Feng and the Dai Li, and include the Duel within it? 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 23:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This put a smile on my face. I had similar thoughts Puragus when I first read it. :) Joey - Talk Contribs 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Energybender 00:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to Azula's plot to set off the coup. I'm still against duel pages, but I could see having a page for Long Feng's conspiracy. It's not technically a battle, but it is an event, of a kind.

Return smile :) Puragus Talk 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Smile back :) Alright, so is it decided to merge with the new page "Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se"? Also, what's your issue with duels? It's not a problem, but why? --SuperFlash101 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that was the better way to ask the question Superflah. The reason we dislike duel pages is because there have been countless and countless and countless battles within the three short seasons. If you would just think about it for a second: every battle in Avatar having its own article. Not only would that be a lot of work for us to create all those articles, but nobody would read them. AlexTalk 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's like saying that every single fight between every single person in the entire world must be documented. How big would Wikipedia be?! So the conclusion is: create page for "Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se" and include a section "Duel in the Tea Shop". 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, there's the nightmare of figuring out a way that they're all accessible. It's messy, to have every fight have its own page, which is pretty much the same argument I made before on the Talk Page for Coup of Ba Sing Se. Puragus Talk 05:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's okay. But, just, what if we have only important duels, like the Final Agni Kai? It's reasonable, right? --SuperFlash101 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is very reasonable because that fight was very important, with the prize being total control of the Fire Nation. AlexTalk 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. We should decide which duels are important on a page like Template talk: Duel. Anyways, so, is it decided to move the page to Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se, because I;ve mentioned it in the "Concurrent" section in the template on "The War," and if it is done I can add the closed template. --SuperFlash101 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We should have pages for the really important duels, like the Final Agni Kai, but we shouldn't go out of our way to make pages for important duels if they can easily be included in another page. For Example, the Battle in Old Ba Sing Se is important, but it works very well as a subsection of Coup of Ba Sing Se, so I don't think it should have its own page. A duel, even an important one, should only have its own page if we cant reasonable put it anywhere else. That's my position. Puragus Talk 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is my position as well. This page will go under the new page "Conspiracy of Ba Sing Se". 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 04:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been moved.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Fire Nation Navy Edit

I created the Military of the Fire Nation page to cover all this. Seriously. Delete. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My god, why do people not get it...Dude, this page, like, covers new stuff, and I am really sick and tired of everywhere I go, I see someone want to delete everything or merge it. I didn't create it, BTW, but I just needed to say that. I am not Gung Ho for deleting it. --SuperFlash101 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand your point of view. It is a valid point of view, it's just that I disagree with it. I know you did not create this page, but this page should go where Fire Nation Army went - in the delete bin. We deleted Fire Nation Army, so we delete Fire Nation Navy, and put this information on the Military of the Fire Nation page, which covers all military belonging to the Fire Nation. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but 888 is right. The Information should be added to the Military Page. You have only one day to transfer the data properly. Tomorrow I will delete this page. There are somethings that can be deleted speedily. And the Admins hold fnal authority over those. I feel that this is one of those things. Unless of course another admin feels differently. If so then I won't do it. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do him a favour and do some or all of the moving. Thanks Zero. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 11:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dont mention it. Afterall, it was the right thing to do. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 13:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow is today. It's time to delete the page, I copied all of the unrepeated information onto the Military page. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 11:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If all the info from the page is already available at the Military page, then the page is no longer needed, but instead of deletion, redirection might be a better fate, redirect to the navy portion of the Military article. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Call Omni. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been redirected to Military of the Fire Nation.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Template:CBSS Edit

SuperFlash created this template yesterday, but it isn't even needed in my opinion. It only links to different parts of the same article. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to link the other two stuff because I'll get big grief over it. --SuperFlash101 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this template isn't neccessary, because it could only possibly be used on one page. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 03:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's to be used in only one page, there's no sense in making a it, for a single page, it's better to write the actual code in the page. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 11:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

888: Not if we create those pages (not the duel, though) because a lot happened. The "Battle Under Lake Laogai" would represent all of that stuff the gang did under there, including the infiltration and the Dai Li attack. --SuperFlash101 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We've been through that, and we've already decided no. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Next time make sure that the Heading is a link to the mentioned Page. Its easier that way. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep or delete and embed coding in the Conspiracy page? We need a resolution. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why havent you given links to the page? I for one can't make a decision unless I've actually taken a look at the article/template/whatever in question. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that most of the links link to the same page and this can be done with the Table of Contents as well therefore it is my opinion that this template is unneeded. Any other views? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 09:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I proposed it for deletion so one might just work out what I think of it. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 14:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Omni, 888 and I am for deletion and only SuperFlash101 is against it. By 3 : 1 in favor of deletion this template is hereby deleted. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides that this issue was more related to Speedy Deletion. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This template has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

"Appearance and Reference" Templates Edit

  • Template:1a
  • Template:1m
  • Template:Mo
  • Template:Im

SuperFlash created these templates today, but in my opinion they are not needed. They also clutter the page in which they are inserted, and the different font sizes and colors do not help. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 06:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Font size and color can be changed in the template, unlike the CBSS one, I think these have the potential to be widely used, it might need tweaking to add sources, or we could use the usual <ref></ref> code, there's an example of it at Combustion Man. If we start adding references and sources to articles those templates can be of use, but only if we start sourcing a lot of stuff. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least don't make them every color of the rainbow. It does not improve the look of the page. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 11:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just think that it looks plain and dry if it's just black and normal. And the reason I created those templates was because I thought it was easier when the section is on the page (which is only pages I've added to them, which reminds me, let's add more of these sections to pages, it'd be interesting, seeing as we have a bunch of expanded universe appearances) because it's a real hassle to have to put <sup>(Mentioned Only)</sup> over and over again. Also, Omni, the "References" refers to when the character was only mentioned. For <ref>, I figured we use a section entitled "Footnotes." --SuperFlash101 14:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Next time make sure that the Heading is a link to the mentioned Page. Its easier that way. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well? Are we going to apply these to all the pages or what? Or will we delete it? We need a resolution here. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why havent you given links to the page? I for one can't make a decision unless I've actually taken a look at the article/template/whatever in question. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 08:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why are we even considering deleting these? It is hard to have to constantly type the code over and over again since I'm the only one who makes Appearances and References sections. I made this to take a load off me. Seriously, why are you guys trying to delete the templates I worked hard to create and make things hard on me again? And, Zero, there's the links up there now. --SuperFlash101 16:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

These are helpful, actually. They look like they may help out users who haven't seen the series, and that is something we can't forget to focus on. By the way, I like the file cabinet image for the archives. --Energybender 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dido, and thank you, Energybender. So can we please just end this unneeded debate? Because I made these for simplistic purposes, in order to help so you don't have to constantly type the code for it. I really don't know why this was even considered to be deleted in the first place. --SuperFlash101 20:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well, that sounds like a good reason. I'll withdraw my proposal. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so are we finally done? --SuperFlash101 23:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We haven't heard from Zero yet. Once he posts, it's over. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm staying neutral on this one. So I guess you could keep them, since there are virtually no objections. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 09:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll keep them. Since I withdrew my deletion proposal and no-one has objected, this discussion is over. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 14:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
The Appearances and References templates will be kept.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Azula's Dai Li Agents Edit

This article was created by an IP. Since the information about this group is already in both the Azula and Dai Li articles, I put it here. It probably won't flourish. --Energybender 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Omnibender has already made it a redirect. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No, he made it into a redirect after I first posted here. --Energybender 02:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. By "already" I meant when I posted. Sorry. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then. --Energybender 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been redirected to Dai Li.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Template:Stub or Template:Expand Edit

One or the other of these two templates needs to be deleted. I am in favor of deleting the Template:Stub its seems too primitive compared to the other. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either should be deleted. The stub template is used not only on short pages that could be expanded, but also on short pages that are difficult to expand. It is essentially a tag that says that the page is short. The expand template on the other hand is used on short pages or long pages that can quickly have new additions to their information. The 888th Avatar - Talk 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But in essence they're both saying the same thing. ie: expand the article. That's why one must be chosen. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, we improve the Stub template making it specifically for short and incomplete pages. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what the stub template does already? It was always meant to be for exceptionally short pages, the ones with only a paragraph or two, or close to that. The expand template is for bigger pages that just need more info. The 888th Avatar - Talk 15:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen the stub as an article with little to no information. I think that the expand article is to be used on articles that are already developed, but still have information that can be added. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The 888th Avatar - Talk 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then we should improve the templates to clearly state that. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I did not change the stub tag however. I didn't think it neccessary. The 888th Avatar - Talk 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. You guys made better templates, why not change the stub one to rival them. If not for anything else, then do it for the sake of consistency, similarity or synchronization, whatever it's called. Just improve that one. Please? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But… but… they're all like that. All the stub templates on Wikipedia and Wikia are like that. The 888th Avatar - Talk 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there isn't a real need to change it. Anyone who has been to a wiki before will know what a stub is and what to do with it. The 888th Avatar - Talk 06:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying to improve the look to match the other templates. Like the yellow box of the needshelp template or the green box of the future template, etc. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it would have to be like one of the smaller ones, like the section templates I made. The big ones would look bad, because the template might actually be bigger than the page itself. The 888th Avatar - Talk 07:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not if you make sure that the width percentage is correct. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this:
What's going on here?
This article is a stub. You can help Avatar Wiki by expanding it.

The 888th Avatar - Talk 07:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll do for now. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 08:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we are using this page for the wrong purpose. If we are making a decision about a template to use, it should most appropriately be hosted on a template talk page or the Community Portal. Since both of them aren't meant to be deleted, this discussion shouldn't go here. --Energybender 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Energybender, this was originally a discussion for deletion, if you read it in full. The 888th Avatar - Talk 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why would you assume I didn't know that? I just some discussion should be established on each one's purpose before we automatically say that one has to go. --Energybender 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In my opinion putting it on the respective talk pages would have been more of a problem beacuse nobody would hardly go there. Especially the Stub template talk page. That is why I put this here. OK? ok. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 06:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
These templates will be kept, and the outlook of the stub template has been improved.
Please do not edit this discussion.

List of All Featured articles Edit

This is essentially the same thing as Featured articles. The 888th Avatar - Talk 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement here. AlexTalk 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
...Any others? AlexTalk 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting both pages to the Featured articles category page. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been redirected to Category:Featured articles.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Template:Eraicon and Template:Era Edit

I'm not really sure what these are used for, if at all. AlexTalk 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They were, until recently, under development. Now we hope to place them on some specific pages. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They look good now. If no-one objects, the discussion will close soon. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, but can somebody please explain what they are used for? Please? Pwwwwwweeeeease? AlexTalk 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You can put them at the top right corner of a page so that a character can be identified as a member of a particular nation. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore it will also relace the featured article template. Of course we will need to rename it. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 08:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If things work out, we might put them in objects and locations as well. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Sorry I had to use my cute voice there! AlexTalk 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the deletion tag on the page. ~Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
These templates will be kept.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Template:Nation Edit

Anyone cares to keep this? It's a less refined version of city templates. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not even being used at all. So I say delete. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, please get rid of this. AlexTalk 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This template has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Romance Edit

Sould we really keep this article. All of this information is either explained in the relationship pages or in the character articles. I vote speedy deletion. Vaznock 03:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. What do others think? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vaznock. It is rather redundantFireBlade 03:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vaznock as well. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the romance page. Some bits on info there aren't found anywhere else.--Dexms4 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this one, but if the community decides on deleting it, it'll be more useful to make it into a redirect to the relationship category. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just think having an article for romance when it is already explained in other articles is much to redundant. The article is also very messy and needs lots of editing anyway. Vaznock 22:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

most of the information is the same so what is the point in keeping it. User:Luvingazula - Talk 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

None. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We could shorten it then keep it as a disambiguation page? No-one will search for "Aang's relationships" to find out about him and Katara, but they would search for "Romance" in general. Then give it a "Main section:" point and it would probably help with navigation, and I would prefer this over redirecting to a category. Just my view. Joey - Talk Contribs 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ye, that would work. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 09:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Joey. Vaznock 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

agreed.Dexms4 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This page has been made into a disambiguation page.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Avatar: the Last Airbender d20 Edit

I propose deletion. This was in speedy deletions, but it's been there for ages and we're not sure what to do with it. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose deletion too. Its a messy and unpopular article. Vaznock 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do it. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a vote for this...? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I put it out of its misery. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
...LOL. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Fire Sage Apprentice Edit

Should we really keep this article? The image is crappy and the information is pathetically tiny. If we deleted Than's Sister, Yue's Mother, and even Unknown Earth Avatar, then why is this article still on the site? There were three other apprentices anyway. I propose a big, fat deletion. Vaznock 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll delete it. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 05:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Template:Acan1 & Template:Acan2 Edit

I don't think this is quite neccessary anymore, we've since decided to put ambiguously canon/non-canon info on separate pages to canon information. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 08:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we have the head template for things that aren't 100% canon. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

True that. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I take it that no-one cares? Does that mean I can delete it? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete it. If people want it to stay, then they lost thier chance. Vaznock 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these going to be deleted? --Energybender 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Will delete. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
These templates have been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Battle of the Rig Edit

The page has too little information to be created and it was said it should not be created on the forums page. Vaznock - Talk 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This decision on the forum page was because its effects are only very loosely related to the outcome of the War. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This article has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Template:Userbox Edit

This template allows users to make customized userboxes, which goes against the principle behind the concept. ― Thailog 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was apart of the discussion and cannot even fathom why we don't allow this. Why? It makes absolutely zero chance why that was proposed/decided, which I don't even remember. Also, this was made for the Fanon wiki and is used on a majority of it's user's pages. The Flash {talk} 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I know why. Because if a user can just make any userbox on their page, then the ones that were formally created are kinda useless, though I may be dead wrong. Honestly, I don't really care which way this goes. Vaznock - Talk 23:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's right then it makes no sense. This is so you don't have to create a userbox only one user will use, so you can say "This user is a fan of <SHOWNAME>" or "This user supports <FAN FIC NAME>." I actually think if that's the actual reason, Vaz, it's ridiculous. Why would a user waste their time using this to say they support the Earth Kingdom when they can use the actual EKsupport one? This allows them to make one without having to create a template they'll likely be the only one to use. The Flash {talk} 23:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I'm not a mind reader. Vaznock - Talk 23:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not accusing you of anything, I was just voicing my opinion. The Flash {talk} 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The agreement was that we only had a moderate quantity of userboxes, so as to curtail on ridiculous ones like "This user likes M&Ms and puppies." This template allows that. ― Thailog 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What agreement? I was in that discussion and remember no mention. Besides, do you actually expect a user to say that? And if so, why should it matter at all? That's their user page and is their problem. This is just one of those things that is causing the fanon side to loose more and more due to the merge :( The Flash {talk} 23:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually you were not a part of that discussion. You were part of the pool. You voted to support the implementation of userboxes, that's all. After 888 said "I support userboxes, but regulation is needed. Approval before use would be helpful" no one objected, and when the majority voted for the userboxes, they (and by implication you) agreed to those terms. This template is a step down from the agreed upon regulation. ― Thailog 23:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine, you got me there, but everything I previously said is valid. You're telling me that we're stopping people from making a harmless change to their user page that no one else will care about at all. Besides, what you just told me about what 888 says doesn't mention at all about how people can't even make custom userboxes. This is just plain ridiculous, IMHO. The Flash {talk} 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sheer common sense: if regulation and approval is needed, then how can it be done if custom userboxes are allowed? ― Thailog 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
What? So you're saying it will cause disorder if we allow users to make a little box that says they enjoy video games? How? I understand regulation is always needed, but this is not a chaotic thing, it's a simple, plain, and easy fun small box that some users put on their user pages. Where's the big deal in that? The Flash {talk} 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the deal is big or not, but it was discussed before and I'm only upholding that consensus. As for the point of regulating userboxes, it is not so much to prevent "chaos" as to curtail silliness and nonsense. The whole point of disallowing user made boxes was to prevent editors from focusing more on their userpages than on content. ― Thailog 12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I made a vote against the useruboxes I was scared they wold cause too much customization and focus on userpages and not enough attention on mainspace stuff, so I'd really rather we stick to very simple, pre-determined userboxes otherwise we'll be giving people a ticket to neglect their editing right by making 30 edits to their userpage before making one mainspace edit. Joey aa 08:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been ten days and we're not getting any closer to agreement. I say that we live up to the name of the page and actually vote on its deletion... Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, I don't think there's anything to vote on here, The 888th Avatar. My flagging of this template was merely a courtesy to prevent a flame war. The bottom line is that the template goes against the userboxes' original intent. And the only voice against its deletion is one of the few members that use it, and therefore biased (sorry to say). We don't have to garner consensus to have it delete it. Since it goes against policy, the onus falls on the discontented party to change current policy. This is no different from the Three Images Per Fanon Article discussion. ― Thailog 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are that a vote would help dispel any controversy and conflict by giving it a fair shot. I know that the policy is only making pre-determined userboxes - I was the one who proposed that - so yes, the template should be deleted under that policy. But a vote would either justify that policy, or urge us to reconsider it. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see why we're refusing to allow people to be able to say "I like to watch The Simpsons" on the userbox, so I'm still very opposed to it, but I understand we did all agree it on it, so I'd understand it's deletion - nonetheless, I find it weird to suck away someone's right to customize their userpage with a small box. The Flash {talk} 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that, currently, this template is in violation of policy and should be deleted. But maybe we could re-open the userbox forum in which the policy was suggested, and discuss a change in the policy. Vaznock - Talk 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Flash: the reasons were cited repeatedly, and Joey pretty much summed them up.
The 888th Avatar: opening a poll to decide whether a policy should be enforced, or not, is counterproductive. It will open a precedent that will allow one single individual to subjectively second guess the enforcement of any consensus reached policy. What's the point of having policies if we have to argue and deliberate every time we must enforce them? Basically, I agree with Vaznock. ― Thailog 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thailog: Joey said that we should keep things simple - that doesn't answer why we care at all what people put on their user page. I'm still against it but understand if it were drleted as it was a policy.
Vaz: Meh, yeah, gotta agree with you but still won't hide the fact I disagree with stopping someone from putting a wee-little box on their user page. The Flash {talk} 01:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the template for policy violation. ― Thailog 20:17, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
This template has been deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Flying Insect Edit

This article is very small, has a low quality image, and nothing even links there. I don't see a reason do keep this page, does anyone else? --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 14:22, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:

Article deleted.

If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Bei Fong family Document and Ticket Master Edit

Are these pages needed? They don't add any information and are poorly written. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 00:16, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree. Dcasawang1 - Talk 20:26, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the Bei Fong family Document should merge with the Bei Fong page 81.132.41.135 23:31, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Mway1
  • I have taken the liberty of doing an example Merge without deleting the original Mway (talkcontribs) 04:45, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Bei Fong family Document has been tidied up and is important enough to have its own article. If "Ticket lady" has an article, the ticket master definately should. OnionBananaJuice (talkcontribs) 09:51, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Support — I agree it should be merged with the Bei Fong page as well. Yes the page has been cleaned up, but it's so small it really should just be merged. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 11:23, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose — I see no reason why we can't have this article. It is an object, it did exist, and it was used. Past policy on this wiki has been that anything of note should have its own article. Clearly, if the Avatar World was the real world, a Family Document - the equivalent of a passport - there is some significance. I urge reconsideration. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:22, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Azula's Group Edit

This article says nothing that wasn't already in Mai, Ty Lee, or Azula's article. Nothing links there, and I don't see the page as useful. Thoughts? --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 15:45, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —Support- Horribly written and redundant. Evatar114 Yangchen-sprite 15:57, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —I agree. Vaznock - Talk 20:50, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —Sorry Courage, not your best work. VJavatar honors the fallen of 9\11 20:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — It's not necessary. I think this has been discussed before. Dcasawang1 - Talk 00:56, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — It's been fixed a lot and since the characters of Team Avatar have all that info in their articles wouldn't that mean that we should delete the Team Avatar article? Just saying....Avatar CourageAang Cosmic 01:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

From what I see, it's still of very low quality. Besides, Team Avatar is actually an official, named group. Azula's gang has never been considered an organization and doesn't have the specific history that the Team Avatar article has. Vaznock - Talk 01:54, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
There was an article for team avatar before it was named.Avatar CourageAang Cosmic 01:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — I don't see the harm in keeping it. I mean, not every article is going to be as elaborate and detailed as other articles, but that's just something we have to deal with. The way I see it, if it is of very low quality, then it should be editted and editted again so that it becomes a respectable article. Water Spout (talkcontribs) 02:05, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — I think the page has much potential, and like Water Spout i see no harm in keeping it, there are far less useful pages also. Shui Tu Huo QiAang Cosmic(Talk)

So, what are we gonna do? Should we count this as a draw and discuss how we can improve the article, or should we just adhere to policy and delete it per the votes being in favor of deletion? Vaznock - Talk 00:37, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I say draw.Avatar CourageAang Cosmic 20:32, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — I say keep, its fine and the page seems to be growing more and more. -- Ousela 13:15, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


I Guess were at a draw. Now what? do we let the admins decide VJavatar is avesome(talkAR)Azula Sprite 01:52, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — I personally don't see the point of this article. In terms of notability, Azula's "elite group" isn't on the same level as Team Avatar. One is a kind of ad hoc group of Azula's friends formed purely to hopefully capture the Avatar, whereas the other is far more integrated. I mean, we know they are friends from their articles, the articles on their relationships (never liked the relationship articles very much anyway), etc. (On the subject of what happens when there is a deadlock of votes, the article isn't deleted. You do need some kind of consensus before deletion.) The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:45, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — I say keep it. Azula's group was an important part of the series. Although it only consisted of the three girls, I think they achieved much, and made an important stand in the series. *~~Ian Bernard~~* (talkcontribs) 00:10, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

So, five opposes, and six supports (counting Bos' nomination). So, does this mean we delete the article? Vaznock - Talk 23:12, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, we can't delete articles if there is a vote deadlock. Either some will have to change their vote, more will have to join in the debate, or I won't be able to do anything. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:24, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — I don't see anything wrong with the idea. sure, it'll probably need a bit more than the usual cosmetic makeover but i think there's some potential in it. I understand the duplication of information argument, but so much of that already goes on here, I can't really see the harm. besides, its not such a bad thing to have their specific history recorded. the character pages do explain the same things, but not in relevance to their group as a whole. and as Ian Bernard said earlier, as a group, they had a significant impact on the history of the Avatar world. anyway, that's my little spiel...

Support Support — It's not that important to the wiki. Malefic 23:10, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Just making it official. Now 888 can you close this vote and delete the page? Nothing even links there. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 00:22, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:
Article deleted.
If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Skirmish on Kyoshi Island Edit

Poorly written, stub, and could be made into a redirect for the section of the Duels article. Thoughts? --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 10:24, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — A policy that was decided a long time ago. Vaznock - Talk 00:37, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — - Agreed. Dcasawang1 - Talk 16:54, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — not needed. VJavatar is avesome(talkAR)Azula Sprite 20:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — yeah just delete it. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 11:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes check Done The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:48, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:

Article deleted.

If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Poetry in the World of Avatar Edit

This really should be part of the arts in the world of Avatar. Thoughts? VJavatar is avesome(talkAR)Azula Sprite 00:59, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — - Insignificant information. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 02:01, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —- I agree with combining it with the arts page as well. Water Spout (talkcontribs) 03:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —I added it to canidates for deletion long ago....--Avatar CourageAang Cosmic 03:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Agreed, add it to the arts page. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 11:12, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Oh ya. Joey aa 02:26, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — I agree with the deletion. But I think it's not necessary to add it in the arts in the world of Avatar page, it's not information about poetry (that's in the arts page now), only the haikus. Dcasawang1 - Talk 02:42, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:

Article deleted.

If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Master Wei Edit

I don't know if this page should be here. From what I have been told, this wiki is for the series. It contains only a few sentences, and has zero information. So?
*~~Ian Bernard~~* (talkcontribs) 00:20, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete it. Bassmasta2012 (talkcontribs) 00:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted by Vaz, and it was okay to do so, because no-one wanted to keep it, but just keep in mind that deleting canon articles is an admin's task. Poke one of us if no-one is doing anything. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

LOFanon:Shippings Edit

This page has started alot of arguments and despite the content warning, continues to offend users. As such, I believe it should be deleted as it would be better for the wiki. Also might I referance this discussion? Malefic 22:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — It really doesn't, shouldn't cause any problems, and I see no harm in it being there, yet, It is offending many, and causing arguments. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 22:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Just delete it please..it will make things alittle less tenseKing Kaizuh -

22:40, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — Every article has arguments, especially when it comes to shipping. So it's not uncommon to see strong opinions on a pure shipping article. If you delete this, you might as well put a ban on all fanon material that supports non-canonical pairings. The article has several warnings. If that's not enough to stop someone, then it's not the article's problem.

there is already an article for this. stuff.....King Kaizuh - 22:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC) so it has no meaning or worth.

  • Then delete that one. A lot of work has been put on the page and it is quite elaborate. There's no images and I see no harm as long as it remains imageless. Water Spout (talkcontribs) 23:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • To water spout: There are no images because I removed them. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 23:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence. On one hand I'd say delete, on the other I say no harm. Just, please keep the visuals out of it. The visuals really set me off. My initial reactions came from "mistaking" this for the legit Shippings page. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 22:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Whats the link to the article that already exists, I haven't seen one. This article is FANON, it's purpose is to display all, or most of the shippings in the fanon world. I just want to put out there that I didn't create this page, as others may assume, but I definitely support it. It's a great reference page for people writing fanons, and don't know what shippings are out there. I say keep it. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 22:58, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • just because you guys don't see it as a problem, doesn't mean that others won't.........they will argue and they will complain......before you know it...we'll be back herdebating on to delete it or not again.....so please get rid of it. King Kaizuh - 23:13, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • And just because you see it as a problem doesn't mean that we do. You don't have to read an article and it's been marked as possibly disturbing to some. That should have given anyone who's judgmental about sexual orientations a heads up of what they may find. If they choose to read it otherwise, then that's their fault. Water Spout (talkcontribs) 23:16, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — The article was created mainly to list random, comical pairings as means for users to have fun and play around. It's not like it's explicitly sexual. Vaznock - Talk 23:06, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

@water spout.....but it still applies vice versa to you also.King Kaizuh - 23:19, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but the thing is, it's been up for about three years, and no one has complained about it until now. Sexually explicit comments can be reported to an admin or fanon admin, but the list is not in any sort of policy violation. Vaznock - Talk 23:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

- Oppose Oppose —To my knowledge, the only times a fanon article can be deleted is for not being up to standards or for other rules that the article has not broken.--Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure. (talk) 23:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose Oppose — Eh, it is true doesn't break any rules. But please! No visuals. (The one's I removed) I really don't want visuals! Vulmen (talkcontribs) 23:26, October 9, 2010 (UTC)



I have nothing more to say. but i will remain in favor of deleting.......end...of...story.King Kaizuh - 23:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Okay so 2 supports and 5 opposes. I guess it is decided it should stay. Malefic 23:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

A couple of hours doesn't decide deletion discussions. This one will be left dangling for a couple of days at least; we have to make sure no-one else wants to contribute. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:31, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:
Article kept.
If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Fire Navy officer Edit

Fire Navy officer, candidate for deletion on the fact that he is such a minor character, his job did not distinguish him sufficiently to merit an article, and the most of the little information about him that isnt just his role in the story, is false. either deletion or some serious repair work in my opinion...

"his job wasn't to make sure the fire navy ships were heading toward Ba Sing Se, it was just a chance encounter as he was heading toward Ba Sing Se himself, and the invasion force's ship was heading the other way. as all ships were supposed to be heading to aid the occupation of Ba Sing Se, he pulled up the invasion force's ship to see why it wasn't following orders."

Jordan.dowding (talkcontribs) 22:43, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —I doubt the infomation on this minor character is needed. Malefic 22:50, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — If wasn't him, the group won't have all these problems in the first episode of book 3. Renatabls 20:23, October 25, 2010 (UTC−3)

Oppose Oppose — I don't see the harm in keeping it. We have a lot of articles that wouldn't really make a difference if they were deleted or not, but they do contribute to the wiki in some way. I think minor rewording can make that page acceptable. PakkuSig copy рrofile · tаlk 23:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — He was an important character, as he did show the struggle that Aang had to deal with; the whole hidden Avatar thing. Keep it. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 00:12, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — He is a minor character but he's important. I think the article was created because Nick.com made a brief description of him in the section of relevant characters of the episode long time ago. Dcasawang1 - Talk 01:55, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — Everything that Nick.com mentioned has an article on this wiki, and we should keep it that way. All characters that at least have a couple of dialogue lines should have an article on this wiki, in my opinion. The 888th Avatar (talk) 07:43, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:
Article kept.
If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

okay, well i'm gonna tag it as needing help. Jordan.dowding (talkcontribs) 05:08, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Toph Candidates Edit

The page is essentially a list of who could be Toph. TLA 2 is very far away, and the page seems like it is not needed. If allowed to stay, it would provide the grounds for pages such as Mai candidates, or Cabbage Merchant candidates. I vote deletion. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 21:28, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Edit

Support Support — Deletion. This is basically a blog entry trying to pass as an article. -- Bunai82 (talk) 22:09, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — 22:55, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —- Why have it? VJavatar The Last Wikibender(AR) 23:16, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — - Remove it. We don't need a page for every single character full of speculative possibilities or shout-outs for recognition...we aren't the place to be attempting to get known/get a name out there. No need. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 23:19, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — - Just because you worked hard on it, it doesn't excuse the fact that it has no place in this wiki. I can spend a week describing Katara's hair loopies, and produce a one page description and analysis of it, but in the end, it will still be pointless. I don't see a page for Ty Lee candidates, or Mai candidates, or any other character candidates. The movie is not about Toph. It's ridiculous that she gets her own page when the actual movie's page is much less developed. There are plenty of people auditioning for Toph; it's ridiculous to document the "favored" ones, especially seeing as how the analyses are pretty bland and not insightful in any way. This kind of page is exactly what drove Omnibender away. If we start to allow horrid quality, we're going to lose users. And frankly, I am getting tired of busting myself to make pages look as best as they can, while someone decides to make a page that looks like garbage. Delete.

PakkuSig copy рrofile · tаlk 00:11, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — - Of course, this article must be deleted now. Why have an article that has to be removed after the release of the film? The information should be in The Last Airbender 2, it doesn't need a special article. Dcasawang1 - Talk 00:38, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Make an account if you would like to vote. 00:31, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't log in. Dcasawang1 - Talk 00:38, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — I don't know much abut this article, as I've never seen it, however, when i heard it was separate from The Last Airbender 2, I'd say merge it, or delete it. Gosh this page seams to be a big debate, nobody kill me for my vote! XD Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 00:42, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

It was already removed from The Last Airbender 2 page. It doesn't warrent it's own page. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 00:43, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
Ah well ya see, just delete it then. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 00:46, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —Delete it. This is just fan speculation and does not belong on the wiki.Justno (talkcontribs) 00:34, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —That page is inessential to this wiki, I also agreed with WS AvaFan (talkcontribs) 02:25, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —-there is really no point in a page like this......i think they should either make it a blog or add it into TLA2 article Appa Rocks Sprite 05:12, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —It's to much like a blog. Ike 15:52, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Unnecessary. Millennia2 (talkcontribs) 01:04, November 21, 2010 (UTC)


Support Support — It seems to me that it's just the candidates trying to get people to support them? Anyways i come here to learn about the show/movie...not about who thinks there right to be in a movie.Husher D316 (talkcontribs) 23:09, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Edit

Oppose Oppose —Totaly agree with Renatabls!


Oppose Oppose — I think is good to have this page until the film is released. - Renatabls - - Legend After Sozin's Comet 21:42, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — Agreeing with Renatabls, I worked pretty hard on constructing that page. Toph is a MAIN character in series and will be in the movie and Mai, Ty Lee, and Cabbage Merchant characters ARE NOT even CLOSE to as important. I vote it stays. Plus, it isn't hurting ANYONE. ~ ANON 21:24, November 9, 2010

Only registered users may vote on this page. If you wish to contribute to Avatar Wiki deletion discussions, just make an account and your voice will be considered. Thanks, The 888th Avatar (talk) 21:57, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — - It's not hurting anybody and if you don't like it then you shouldn't go to it. It's RUDE to just say 'bye bye, Toph candidates'. If we can't put them on TLA2 film page they diserve to have their own page. ~ ItsATophThing

Ignore this, it is just the earlier anon trying to impersonate itsatophthing. 23:35, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — - Obviously, this is the REAL ItsATophThing. Yes. I oppose the deletion.. I think it should have some restrictions on it, though. We need to come up with rules for this page because so many oppose having it. ItsATophThing 23:44, November 9, 2010

Oppose Oppose — We should keep this until the casting is confirmed. Otherwise, we will see Toph candidates cluttering the comments section every freaking day! Think of it as a relief valve, and a one-stop location to check out who is trying out for Toph. A blog wouldn't work because only one person gets to edit that page. User talk:Hasdi 05:08, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hasdi... supporting means "deletion". I know it is confusing due the subject. -- (talk) 19:52, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Gah... Thx...

Oppose Oppose — I think we should keep it until the casting is confirmed. Naturally, people may think my vote is biased but I think I speak for all of the Toph candidates when I say that this is a place where we can update people and get supporters. I agree that the page needs some work but that's what we're here to do. Suppose you think I'm being biased but I still have a vote and I vote it stays. 20:37, November 10, 2010 (UTC) ~ MeganLewallen

Oppose OpposeI created the Toph Candidates Section. Here is my honest opinion...

It deserves its very own article unless useless (by that I mean not related to Avatar) pages like "Shippings" also get deleted.
Main Reasons To Keep It:
  • It does bring visitors from youtube to Avatar Wiki.
  • It does have readers that check for updates, sometimes they even depend on this wiki for updates.
  • These people do (believe it or not) have "fans" that are active on the wiki.
  • It is an interesting topic to many and should not be left un-noticed. All over the internet people are wondering who will potray "Toph."
Main Reasons for Deletion
  • The page is not based on concrete facts. It is based on opinion and speculation along with rumors.
  • Toph may have already been cast.
  • These people probably have no chance at getting the part of Toph.
I, the creator of the Toph Candidates Section, oppose its deletion because although it may lack factual statements that other articles all contain, it brings alot of activity to this wiki. I think we are in need of this article. Those who support its deletion are sending away visitors. The Toph Candidates Section is an inviting topic that has gathered visitors to this wiki from Facebook, Myspace, and Youtube. Again, I OPPOSE STRONGLY on its deletion. Explosions <3
More reasons for deletion, in my opinion
  • Clutter and is basically a stub.
  • The data within is bland and basically the same information repeated. "She's considered because she's Asian. She is liked by the fans. Her account is here."
  • Despite bringing in visitors, it doesn't actually contribute to the wiki's standard. The youtube users attracted mostly add on more clutter, useless images or just leave comments.
  • It stands out like a sore thumb. Why is Toph given her own casting page, while the others don't?
  • This subject can easily be transferred to a blog, instead of an article.
  • It's a disposable article. Inevitably, it will be deleted if the movie fails to be greenlit or once the cast is revealed.
I personally believe that it's a waste of a page and I support its deletion entirely. Simple compromise is to make a blog.
PakkuSig copy рrofile · tаlk 05:11, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
I have another compromise solution, one that will keep fans from other sites happy and maintain our stringent article standards. The blog article may be a problem because only one person (other than admins like me of course :P) can edit their content. At this stage, it looks like the article will be deleted, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being in our project namespace (the pages with "Avatar Wiki:" before their titles). These pages can be edited by anyone. This should be okay because, then, it's a community project some users want rather than something we treat as fact (which is the purpose of our articles). If users cannot accept that, someone can always move it to their user space (User:The 888th Avatar/Sandbox D is an example of a user space page). There is, of course, no policy on what can be in your user space. The 888th Avatar (talk) 08:05, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
If there is such favoritism for keeping it why not create a "Candidates for Casting" page to wrap up the casting for the movie in general? Or as someone else, just merge it into the TLA2 page, it just doesn't make sense for it to have a solo page because by the time the movie is out (or doesn't) the page will not longer be needed. -- Bunai82 (talk) 15:37, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
It was on the film page. I removed all of the Toph casting info from the page, and then another user later put this information onto a new pages. A general casting page would a good idea - but maybe not in the mainspace. The 888th Avatar (talk) 15:41, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — i feel just becuse, it should stay up. it does in fact bring many people to avatar wiki and it wouldn't hurt. like if you wanted to see the tla2 stuff you could just use that and talk about that there and you wouldn't have to try and ignore the toph stuff. this saves a bunch of confusion and trouble for everyone. i don't see why everyone is agreeing to delete it.Richada Ky (talkcontribs) 12:11, November 12, 2010 (UTC)Richada Ky

Oppose Oppose — Having reconsidered my position, I am now voting to fully oppose this article's deletion. Gathering from the comments we've received about this article, and from the strength of Google search results for this page, it appears to be a topic the Avatar fan base does want to remained informed about. Like I said some time ago, topics that the Avatar fan base wants to know about should be on the wiki, and shouldn't be deleted just because they may incite arguments. (That argument is like saying people on Wikipedia should delete the article for Barack Obama because heated debate goes on in the talk page all the time.) However, the article is clearly not written to a standard that is sufficient for our wiki, and if it is necessary, I will clean it up myself, providing we do not delete this page. Also, clearly, Toph is not the only character that is going to be cast, so we should widen our scope, in the interests of being fair. The 888th Avatar (talk) 08:46, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — Agreed. Why not have this article? After all, Toph's casting is a very heated debate, that our users surely would like some more info on it. I also think it would be approriate to add more possible casting articles as the audition videos became more prominent (such as a Ty Lee page). To me, it seems like a harmless way to de-clutter the TLA2 page. Ginga 1234Katara-Sprite 11:49, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — I think that this page should stay just where it is. I, including many others(surely), have been 'stalking' this Wiki just to find out more about Toph's casting & get updates about it. It doesn't and it won't harm anything or anyone. Furthermore, the page is quite focused on its own, unlike where it was previously. So please, just keep the page. ~>Izzah Haziqah [9.06pm, 17/11/10]

Oppose Oppose — I'm a new user to the wiki but what drew me here was the gossip on candidates ... but I've been on other wiki's before so I know how this works ... I like the idea of a place to come and find stuff out about the candidates. ~ KataraxZuko 6:02PM, November 17 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Edit

Neutral Neutral I recognise that there was some hard work put into this article, and that someone, especially an anonymous user, would go to the effort to write such material is encouraging. Moreover, the purpose of this wiki is to cover all information on the Avatar franchise; that means that if the fanbase feels that this is a topic important to them, it should be covered. For example, we originally did not have a Shipping article, because the user base at the time felt that it would inflame shipping wars. However, I still felt strongly that it should be included, and after some discussion, created the base form of the article as it stands today. I also recognise, however, that this topic is detracting from the quality of our articles overall, and I have previously deleted similar information from our TLA2 article. We are not a casting website, and I'm concerned that some do not fully recognise this and have not applied properly to Paramount, only posting video links on this wiki. My advice, if this deletion goes ahead, is for the creator of this article (who I believe now has a user account) to put this information into new blog post. That is totally relevant to our wiki and would save the effort put in to this article. The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:57, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with placing the info on a blog. That sounds like a good compromise. It can be linked to by the film page.

PakkuSig copy рrofile · tаlk 01:46, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

As I said, a blog entry passing as an article. The shipping article gets traffic and the occasional bias edits, no doubt about it, but I've seen that controlled over the months. If it is to be kept at least do what Lostpedia does, create a discussion page and attach it to the main TLA film page. After the movie is created, if possible, then what would happen to the page then? It wouldn't serve much purpose.
I don't believe anyone is saying "delete it from sight" with malicious intent, they are just stating that it is not really relevant to the rest of the content as a go-to article. -- Bunai82 (talk) 19:52, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, It should be a blog post. It's too informal for a proper page BUT We cannot delete it! Wait for him to transfer the page and then delete it, he's spent a lot of time on it and he deserves recognition. Not to mention we should somehow support these independant actresses get promoted and noticed. Admiral-165 (talkcontribs) 21:36, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comments Edit

Hey, 888, don't you think it has been long enough? 05:51, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Policy is two weeks for votes, unless people stop commenting and/or voting. I note, in particular, that I'm the only admin who has voted so far. I can't really justify, at the moment, that the entire community has given their voice, so I'll keep waiting. The 888th Avatar (talk) 08:46, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

It has been two weeks.

-- 19:12, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Article not deleted. Consensus has not been reached. Further discussion pending.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Film:Dama Dhia Nisrina Edit

This shouldn't be on the wiki, should it? What purpose does it serve other than unconfirmed information about TLA2 and the girl? I think it should be deleted.
Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 15:14, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —It's really pointless. also i think it was made by the girl herself, so the page is set up almost like a facebook profile, considerng that it also has contact information on it. Ike 15:56, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Agreed. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 16:13, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — THIS is why I want to keep the Toph Candidate's page. So that girls like her can BE on Wiki without making a wiki page for themselves. I think that the girl having her own page is unfair to the rest of the candidates and is just pointless. Candidate's shouldn't have their own pages until/if they receive a role. ~ ItsATophThing 16:53, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Okay, well I don't support the candidates for toph page. It's unnecessary, and even though someone considers themselves as a candidate, doesn't mean that they are. Anyone could -say- they're a candidate, but without factual information, it's useless.
    Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 22:41, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support SupportDcasawang1 - Talk 22:34, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — 22:51, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Article deleted. This page is a policy violation as it fails criteria for articles, both notability and fanbase interest. Pages that are policy violations do not require voting on this page.
Please do not edit this discussion.

History of Azula (85 AG - 100 AG) Edit

The page has two lines of text, and the background of most characters before their appearence in the series are hosted on the main page. Azula doesn't have that big of a role, so I think it should be deleted. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 18:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Yeah The Bos is right. This page has no purpose. It only has two lines of text. I support deletion. 1stAvatar (talkcontribs) 18:25, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Pointless Page. Malefic 18:28, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support SupportDcasawang1 - Talk 22:39, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Neutral — It's not up to par now, but I feel it could be improved and more information could be added to make it more suitable. Ginga 1234 Katara-Sprite 23:43, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —There isn't enough info to warrant an article. -- 00:35, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Doesn't need own page; any useful information that doesn't have enough depth to require its own article can just be stated on Azula's article. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:00, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Article deleted. (No comments for more than three days.)
Please do not edit this discussion.

Buddhist Chant Edit

This article hasn't enough information. It should be deleted or moved to another page. I don't know if that chant exists in the real world or not. Dcasawang1 - Talk 01:11, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — The chant is real in our world, yes, but this is a very, very minor detail in our Avatar knowledge base. I'm sure most people don't really pay enough attention to the music playing in the background to make out the syllables of the chant! The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:14, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — It can't be enhanced and is very very very minor. --

Support Support — Does not deserve its own page. I suggest merging the information into Spiritual Beliefs in the World of Avatar, Songs in the World of Avatar or Energybending.

PakkuSig copy рrofile · tаlk 01:41, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — As per above. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 01:56, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — WS's suggestion; merging the page. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 02:47, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — i agree with the three suggestions above......merge them.King Kaizuh - 22:42, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support —Same here. Merge it, or delete it. AvaFan (talkcontribs) 13:42, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support SupportRenatabls 23:05, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Article deleted
Please do not edit this discussion.

Nini Edit

I find this page unimportant. She was only mentioned, never seen or heard. This page needs to be deleted. 1stAvatar (talkcontribs) 23:01, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support Edit

Oppose Edit

Oppose Oppose — We have a standard of documenting everything archived by the the nick site. Nini was one of those entries. Water Spout tаlk • blog 23:30, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — As per above. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 00:02, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — As above; but also because it does hold relevance. It's one of the only things we hear that Katara's mother had spoken of during her lifetime, in an event that directly involved her. Also holds possible uses for fanon writers. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 00:06, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose OpposeDcasawang1 - Talk 00:37, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — This is a wiki of the series, everything with importance such as this page, as explained by Vulmen & Water Spout, needs to be included. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 00:46, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose OpposeMalefic 14:01, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose OpposeRenatabls 17:20, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comments Edit

Well I feel stupid. :( 1stAvatar (talkcontribs) 02:44, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Pfft. Don't. It's a short article, I mean I see how it would be beneficial to just get rid of it aha. But you know, policy and standards, they come before opinion :P
Water Spout tаlk • blog 02:46, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:

Article not deleted.

If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Film:Elements taken from the Original Series|Film:Differences with the Original Series]] Edit

This article has already generated a lot of film bashing and it was barely created a little less than a day ago.

--

Support Edit

Support Support — I'm surprised, I thought 888 just outright deleted that info. But then Hasdi put all the info on that page? I don't really know what happened - but it got moved from the film page to that page. Regardless; it serves no purpose on that page other than inciting quarrels over how the movie fails to "measure up" to the series, and should be removed. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 07:11, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Anyone with a brain would see the differences, which are huge and unmissable. Delete this page, no use for it, and really no need whatsoever for it. Momo Sprite*~~Ian Bernard~~*Momo Sprite 07:43, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — ...Blog post? The 888th Avatar (talk) 10:56, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Yep, 888 took it out but some anon undid he changes and suggested it be moved to another page. Rather than have another edit war, I moved it. Anyway, highlighting the differences is as useful as comparing Sam Raimi's Spiderman vs. the original comics' series, and likewise with Singer/Rattner's X-Men. It would take hundreds of pages or more! The movie has its own story direction, supported with elements from the animated series as needed. Maybe a better question to ask is which elements were kept rather than what was omitted or changed? Hasdi (talkcontribs) 12:26, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — As per above. Dcasawang1 - Talk 12:55, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Maybe if we change the article into a more neutral tone, it wouldn't look like some random hater's rant about the movie. AvaFan (talk contribs) 15:58, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — It could be improved, but if not, delete it. Renatabls 17:27, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Support — Even though I hate the movie,it's just a bunch of ranting,and it's not very nice to the people who actually like the film. Chapreyes (talkcontribs) 04:34, December 11, 2010 (UTC)Chapreyes

Support Support — Pointless. Water Spout tаlk • blog 04:42, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we have been dealing with this for so long!!!! It is so stressful to edit and it just doesn't really have a freaking point!{{Support Support — ExplosionsHurtPeople 02:54, December 13, 2010 (UTC)}}

I think it would be fine to just make it a blog Support SupportAppa Rocks Sprite 13:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Edit

Oppose Oppose No, it's not a blog post. No, this article does not bash the movie or offend M Night Shyamalan, the plot, the casting or the actors in any manner. It actually serves as a purpose to clarify how the movie differs from the series. Many other wikis also has sections where they compare the original source and the adaptation. Eragon has it. Harry Potter has it. Lord Of The Rings has it. So why not A:TLA? If you think that this is to show how the movie does not "measure up", that's your own point of view. So this page stays. User:124.13.184.155 11:11, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - you need to be a registered user (or logged in if you have a user name) to be able to vote on VfD. Regardless, you have made coherent arguments in favour of keeping the page, and so I feel obliged to answer them. :) (By the way, my "blog post" comment was actually a suggestion that this kind of content would actually be more suited to a blog post, not that is a blog post.) I'm aware that other wikis (and Wikipedia, for that matter) have sections elaborating on differences between the adaptation and the source material. I'm not against highlight differences per se. However, I'm also concerned, due the length and tone of this "article", that users are more interested in discrediting Shyamalan's film adaptation (even if it isn't really bashing) than actually highlighting a few key differences (which, if you observe film adaptation articles on Wikipedia, is done correctly there). We shouldn't need an entire article for this. At most, a small section - checked to be neutral, and in prose rather than in a list format - in the main article is enough, and I suggest interested writers get on to that. The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:50, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — At last, I am now a registered user. Anyways, I've read those who wants the page deleted. They said it is either "pointless" or "plenty of ranting". I disagree. I feel that this is a neutral piece of work and that every entry is not intended to bash the movie or anything. I recently sub-categorize the differences based on episodes adapted in the movie. Now people can edit whatever they think is "anti-ATLA" anytime they like. In the meantime, this page is here to stay.--KaneC (talkcontribs) 09:17, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

If I may suggest, it may be more productive to highlight what elements from the animated series are included in the movie. To highlight the differences presuppose that the movie was given the Harry Potter or LOTR-like treatment, rather than X-Men, Spiderman, or GI Joe-like treament. You'll end up hundreds of pages of differences and end up frustrated with the movie. Instead, it may better to view the movie having its own story that heavily uses element from the animated series plus others. Otherwise, we'll end up with a 'pointless' apples and orangutans comparison, and argue endlessly which is the apple and which is the orangutan.
Rather than deleting, how about renaming/moving it to Elements taken from the Animated Series or Commonalities with the Animated Series? Savvy? Hasdi (talkcontribs) 22:16, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have to even compare it to the show? Either way everyone complains.
--
Adaptation is still an adaptation as flawed as it may be. I mean, it is not as divergent as Dragonball Evolution or Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible. Bah! Hasdi (talkcontribs) 22:32, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
It is a very bad idea here, haven thou seen all the Shyamalan threats and other things?
--
Yeah. :-( What is it with these people? Don't they have Korra to look forward to? Anywho, I am curious to know what KaneC thought of my renaming suggestion. Hasdi (talkcontribs) 22:50, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Great idea, Hasdi! I've been thinking about the same thing! Elements taken from the Animated Series is a better name for the page.--KaneC (talkcontribs) 09:43, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a resonable man. :-) The rule is simple: you have new coach to a high school football team. Everybody is cut so everyone including the star quarterback has to go for a tryout. Thus, many items in the page can be crossed out.
Instead of:
Many aspects of the show are either changed or noticeably missing in this movie. This is a list about some of the principal differences between the original series and the film series:
Change it into:
The film series took many elements from the show. The following is a list of elements taken from the original animated series which are otherwise omitted or changed:
Once you do that, you can see many items becames unnecessary and can be removed, such as Katara's healing by water or any mention of Avatar State. The inclusions can be organized by episodes like The Boy in The Iceberg, The Avatar Returns, The Blue Spirit, Siege of the North, etc, etc. For example, The Waterbending Scroll may be only have a single entry. If you agree on this scheme, why don't you change it as such and I (and possible others) may jump in later. Savvy?
Hasdi (talkcontribs) 11:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Savvy! All we need to do is unlock the page so I can sort things out. Someone just hacked into the page just to spread in some hate message, which is why it is blocked. :( --KaneC (talkcontribs) 08:31, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
The page is now unlocked. The 888th Avatar (talk) 08:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
@The 888th Avatar, I moved the page to Elements taken from the Original Series as I am now very satisfied that the content is no longer about Differences with the Original Series. Essentially, the old page is deleted and a new page is created to replace its previous purpose. The new title will emphasize to wikia contributors not to add differences but only common elements (with differences only to qualify or clarify included elements).
As such, can we have the Voting for Deletion tag removed? A new page would require a new voting entry if so needed, I would think. Thanks all. :-)
Hasdi (talkcontribs) 14:48, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:

Article renamed and rewritten.

If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.