Good articleThe Last Airbender (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 23, 2008Articles for deletionRedirected
January 20, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
August 8, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that director M. Night Shyamalan has been criticized for allowing Caucasian actors to play Asian characters in his upcoming film The Last Airbender?
Current status: Good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imthinking101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Personally, I like the film and that has made me wonder if I some kind of alien after reading some english reviews. However, I think it would only to be fair to note the that film got much better reviews in non-english speaking countries. Especially, the german reviews that I have read were positiv. (see also the german wikipedia article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.84.66 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

coming from switzerland i fully agree. the film was well received from what i can rememmber. 2A02:1210:2A4D:C800:C8B7:3601:C759:810F (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last Airbender/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Reworked the copyvios and reformatted the awards table. Rusted AutoParts 05:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: great, picking up with prose/coverage/etc Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it completely. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: gathered the sources missing, but could you point out specifically which quotes you mean? Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: Where quotations end a sentence but there is no ref at the end of the sentence - like the example mentioned below, where the next sentence talks about something different so it doesn't seem like the ref applies. It makes it easier to find specifically the source if it's attached to the sentence with the quote in it. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if a trimming is necessary, it does meet the 700 limit WP:FILMPLOT requirement (sits at 600). Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "during training" Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah she played Yue in the film. Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piped the show into the word "series". Rusted AutoParts 22:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I adjusted this. Rusted AutoParts 22:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I elected to delink their names in that sentence. Not sure if that's the best option though. Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be the former. No Google results produced a Nathan Blackmer or A. Nathan Blackmer outside of here and the ATLA wiki. I lean towards the former as I figure if it was part of their name it would include a period. Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It shares a source with the Shyamalan quote that mentions Blackmer. Rusted AutoParts 06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalized. Rusted AutoParts 06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for the first, and that has bee added. Rusted AutoParts 06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've adjusted it. Rusted AutoParts 06:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked. Rusted AutoParts 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I flipped the words around and I think it makes more sense. Rusted AutoParts 20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am wanting to add that info in but the source in racebending that describes the term being coined due to the film is a dead link. Presently can't find a new source that makes this statement. Rusted AutoParts 20:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would my addition of "to reassure critics" make it fit better? Rusted AutoParts 20:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Happy Meals. Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chipped it down to "The second manga was released on June 22, 2010". Will this suffice? Rusted AutoParts 20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped a bunch of the "behind X movie" stuff, think it makes it better. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the actors. I think the additions were to emphasis what those actors were discussing but since the other actors' comments weren't included in the page, the list isn't prudent. Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took "Director's responses" and made it "Crew responses" so that the Patel info had a place to go. Will that suffice? Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved creators response up, and put Basco's with Patel's. Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

@Kingsif: I believe I've tackled everything. Rusted AutoParts 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: Yes, looks good - did you want to respond to the 'audience' comments below? I thought the Cinemascore source was fine, and it's not WP generalizing to say that the stats for audience response are about average, so to me it's a non-issue and I didn't mention it. If you want to address the IP's "serious concerns" about... a source using numbers not words? ... you can. Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I personally don’t see the issue so I don’t feel it’s needing addressing. Rusted AutoParts 23:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audiences

The article includes several claims of that "audiences" were also critical of the film, such as the Critical response section which begins with "The Last Airbender was panned by critics, fans of the animated series, and general audiences." The only actual source to back up this generalization about audiences seems to be the C grade from Cinemascore (and even that is a small sampling of opening weekend audiences). So while the statement is probably true, it is a dubious generalization, and I have serious concerns about dubious generalizations. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but who are you and can you not hijack a review when you've been editing (checks contribs) less than a day. Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have any reason to believe that editors were not supposed to or allowed to comment on GA reviews, but perhaps there are details about the process that I am unfamiliar with. If there are specific rules about this process that I should familiarize myself with I would encourage you to point them out.
Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, my anonymity, or long history of editing or lack of one, shouldn't be relevant. I did not think reputation or history were a prerequisite to participating.
You are evaluating the article, do you disagree with the substance of my comments? Do you not agree the article would be better if generalizations unsupported by sources were avoided?
I made comments in WP:GOODFAITH, I'm don't understand why you would characterize my comments as a "hijack", but if review process is supposed to only involve one editor and one reviewer then I apologize in advance for not knowing about those rules. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, how about you go read the GAN reviewing instructions? Don't claim ignorance of the rules while suggesting you know enough to review. Comments are fine, but don't start new sections and begin reviewing yourself and telling the original reviewer they're wrong straight up unless there are serious concerns, especially when otherwise everything has been moving along fine. I'd also encourage you to make an account and get some actual experience before reviewing GANs: you need experience to be able to assess a good article and an account provides accountability. If you keep jumping in on other editors' reviews like this, you're going to be quickly blocked for disruption. Also, ping @BlueMoonset: to keep an eye on this IP. Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been pinged, I took a look around. Kingsif, it looks like this IP has been around for quite a while, albeit under a multitude of IP addresses, which is what can happen if one's ISP keeps reusing and reassigning addresses with any frequency. See Talk:Demolition Man (film) for various 109.78 and 109.79 addresses going back over a year, including the current one. Also, I do have to point out that on WP:GAN, there's the following text on each review line: Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome.) That the additional comments were added in a new section seems to happen often enough—I've done it myself so as not to interfere with an ongoing review, but to point out a new issue that seemed to need addressing. As reviewer, you do have final say, but others are always allowed to point something out that may need addressing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did write how comments are welcome but, though the IP's may have been in good faith, the comment 'correcting' me above in my own review, and then seeming to start their own below is more hijacking than helpful. If the IP has been around, have they tried this elsewhere? I don't think they'll be able to start GAN reviews without an account, so is this their MO? (and, the format of the comment above seems more like the format of ITN/consensus discussions, which is strange) Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I have commented on a GA review before it has not been more than a few times, I haven't had any reason to look deeply into the rules. You obviously know the GA rules, highlighting a relevant part of it should be a lot easier for you, than it would be for me to find what ever thing it is you think I'm doing so horribly wrong as to accuse me of "hijacking". Instead of the hostility you could have suggested I do things in a different way, or keep my comments to the article talk page. Taking it personally or making it about reputation doesn't help anyone, isn't improving the article the most important thing anyway? I'm allowed to not have an account and I prefer it that way, and instead of being yet another fake name I hope people focus instead on improving the articles.
I threw in my 2 cents, I'm sorry if that upset anyone, let's get back to improving the article as best we can. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want you can delete this thread/subsection. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I was referring to was the part BlueMoonset mentions about reviews typically being done by one editor. The fact you immediately jumped in while the review was ongoing, with a new section that didn't seem to acknowledge there was a review but also the tone of the comment you left in my review above, occurred to me as hijacking because it seemed that some new IP user either thought that reviews were a community discussion or a free-for-all, and rather than being helpful, you were saying 'I see you opened a review, but screw you, my turn'. Maybe it wouldn't have seemed so out-of-place if the new section had addressed the nominator (and the reviewer) and said "I was also looking at this, have you thought about"... and if you hadn't dropped an opinion in the middle of my review. As said, if you want to do GAN reviews, you would need an account. Being an IP means you can't, which can also make users think you may be 'hijacking' (i.e. if an IP user is thinking 'I can't open a review for this article I want, but someone else has done it now so I'll claim it', but this was only ever in the back of my mind) Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible name change[edit]

Would it not make sense to rename this to "The Last Airbender (film)"? There are no other film adaptions of the source material or any film with the same name, and "The Last Airbender (film)" redirects to this article anyway. Wasabi OS (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toph Live Action Like It Cool Future return sequels[edit]

Xochitl Gomez like right cool 2400:AC40:620:616C:1D11:DD93:BFFE:9A27 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Airbender → The Last Airbender (film) – "The Last Airbender" may still refer to the TV series RMXY (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories