The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 22 August 2008 [1].

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes[edit]

previous FLC

Since it was removed from FL status a month back, this list has undergone a huge copyedit and a revision with the table's coloring, as well as a thorough peer review. I believe that it is now up to FLC status. Since I haven't made enough edits to qualify submitting this list, I've contacted User: Rau J and he agrees that the list is ready for FLC. Let the nitpicking begin, then... --haha169 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are, but how are you to source the credits?--SRX 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same way as we source the plot. We don't. I don't know if there is an exact guideline, but all TV articles do this - no source is really required for the plot section. In the same sense, no source is required for the credits because its already sourced. An off-line source, yes, but it can easily be verified by going to Veoh or iTunes and watching the episode. --haha169 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--SRX 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "The following is an episode list for "... don't start this way - FAs don't start "The following is an article..." so Featured Lists shouldn't do either. Tell me as soon as possible in the lead what the series is about before telling me all the broadcast details, for instance.
      • The first sentence is supposed to tell you what the article is about, not what the subject is based on. The article is a list of episodes, and as such, states it as soon as possible. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, it's boring. Fix it up. Check some of the other FLCs for inspiration. Why not "List of Avatar: The Last Airbender is a television show which has had x episodes..." - which tells you exactly what the article is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It can be boring. I looked at other FL's for inspiration on this. I randomly clicked on about fifteen and most of them had similar opening statements. And I personally think that "boring" is a POV term, probably not good to use when reviewing an article. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I said check the FLCs, not FLs. Standards have improved. This isn't a cake walk anymore. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Howabout I base it on what actually passed rather than suggestions. Per both WP:LEAD and WP:LIST this is the adequate way to start an article. WP:LIST actually give examples that say to do it this way. Rau's Speak Page 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps you've missed the recent discussions. No FLCs are passing when they start so blandly. Point me at a featured article that starts so blandly. Criterion 2 - engaging lead. Which this hasn't got. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • If an article doesn't pass for following the style guidelines, then there is something wrong. But whatever, guidelines were made to be ignored. Howabout "Nickelodeon's animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which first aired on February 21, 2005, with a one-hour series premiere[1] and concluded its run with a two-hour series finale on July 19, 2008,[2] has a total of 61 episodes."? Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "first aired " was it just aired in the US or elsewhere on Nickleodeon?
      • First aired anywhere. We use the first airdates period. Not based on any one country. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who's we? You're addressing a global audience who are interested in where it's shown. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "We" as in those who wrote the article. There is a consensus because certain episodes aired elsewhere in the world first, so we (the writers) agreed to focus globally. It just happens that most of them are US airdates. Two of them are actually DVD release dates. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's Aang? You talk about him without telling us anything about him?
      • It tells you everything you need to know in a brief summary. It also says as much about Zuko. It's not like we can go into his vegetarianism, monk hood, or pacifism. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it doesn't, you talk about Aang in the opening paragraph without saying anything about him. It's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh... hehe. I forgot he was mentioned there. Will change to "the protagonist". Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "each comprised of twenty " "each comprised 20" or "each consisted of 20"...
    • "The series has been released entirely on region one" I guess you mean "The whole series has been releaesed on region one"?
      • Thats what it says. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, your English is poor there. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it's not. The current statement and the one you say mean the same thing, unless the word "entirely" has had its definition changed. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your version could be read as just region one. My version doesn't can't be misconstrued. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Later in the (now non-existant) paragraph, it said that season one had been released on R2. But, the current version should have no such problem. Rau's Speak Page 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "region one" "Region two " check capitalisation.
    • "Season one was released in five installments with four episodes each, with a sixth release containing everything from the previous sets. Seasons two and three followed a similar format, but with five episodes released in four installments. Season three volume four had six episodes, due to the season being one episode longer than the others. " very dry and boring I'm afraid.
      • Creative writing isn't a requirement for FL. Although I did remove mention of the extended S3v4, not really needed in the lead. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, Criterion 1 asks for professional standards of writing. This is just fact listing, like a trivia section just without the bullet points. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because it states nothing but facts doesn't make it bad writing. It doesn't say "It features professional standards of writing that are not boring." But, whatever. I changed it and put it in the first paragraph. Rau's Speak Page 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does element link to bending instead of "bend"?
      • Because they are the same thing. Bend in an art, a noun. Bending is the action of that, a verb. If you bend something, you are bending it. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link Aang the first time, not the second and third.
    • You've only mentioned three elements in the first para and then all four are mentioned in the last para of the lead.
      • Thats because the first mention only deals with the three that Aang must master. He has already mastered air. Clarified, better this way? Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heading 2007-2008 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
    • Any reason to wikilink the release dates?
    • Explain (20) etc...
    • "The first Avatar: The Last Airbender " should that be in italics?
    • I would avoid the use of small text altogether.
      • Done. Rau's Speak Page 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a quick question: I'm not the most familiar with lists, but I've never read a style guideline that suggests to avoid the usage of small text on tables or other places. --haha169 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, but why use it? All it does is prejudice against those with visualisation difficulties? --The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't "prejudice" against anyone. But whatever, it's already been changed. No point arguing over it. Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's all fine, but what about when the Season articles hit FLC? They also have small text. But they can't be enlarged since the table itself isn't that large anyway. And I also have an understanding that there should be uniformity? Never mind, this discussion can continue later. --haha169 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how do [4][5] and [6] reference "The shorts were done in a super deformed style."? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do they not? It's obvious in the source material. Rau's Speak Page 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Watch the shorts themselves. And I believe [3] explicitly states "super deformed". Perhaps that should be used as the source instead? --haha169 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose—Not written well enough.

PS Opening repetition: there's a bit here and a bit here. Tony (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think we've already established a fine opening lead with boldface as well as a opening sentence that describes the subject in great detail. If there are any issues with the current one, please say so. But those two links have been taken care of already. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

  • You don't have to crowbar in any bold text. If it's not in the opening sentence, don't stick it wherever it might fit.
    • I've moved it to the opening sentence. *SIGN* 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the correct name of the unaired pilot "Pilot (out-of-continuity)", or is the parenthesised bit added in under good faith by an editor? If so it's WP:OR and should be removed.
    • The pilot is unnamed. I've removed the parenthesized statement. *SIGN* 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at List of Lost episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of Lassie episodes and List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes. They are all Featured Lists, but they present the episode tables quite differently to this one.
    • I'm afraid I don't understand this point, we modeled the episode tables specifically after Smallville. And after looking at them, it resembles all the ones you listed. *SIGN* 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no universal Wikipedia episode table, and FL criteria suggests that the table look appealing and creative. I think the coloring looks appealing and creative - much more so than that of the Simpsons. Therefore, you can't pin us on this one. --haha169 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The colours don't bother me. What I mean is that they are transcluded from each individual season article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have it backwards. The ones on the season articles are from this list, and even so, there is nothing wrong with that. It shows unity between the articles. *SIGN* 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No you have it backwards. Take a look at List of Lost episodes in edit mode. You have this:

              ==Season 1: 2004–2005==
              ((Main|Lost (season 1)))
              ((:Lost (season 1)))

              Then on Lost (season 1) at the episode table, you will see it is surrounded by <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> The table is transcluded from Lost (season 1) to List of Lost episodes, and only one table (the season page) is ever edited. Any edits show up at the main episode list. This should happen here too. At the moment, the episode tables here don't even use ((episode list)). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • ((episode list)) is for individual season lists. List of The Simpsons episodes don't use that template, or any of the template's columns, although I think prod. code should be included to the Avatar list as well. I got lost at the technical coding stuff, so I can't reply there. --haha169 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's an interesting idea. However, Smallville doesn't do that. And if we did do that, the season articles would lose their summaries. And not doing it is no reason to prevent FL status, seeing as there are FL's that don't do it. But I'll look into it. As for prod codes, I don't know where to find them. *SIGN* 21:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • As they stand now, it can't be done while still keeping the visual look of them both. There really is nothing wrong with the coding as it is. *SIGN* 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I implemented my suggestion. Take a look at it now and see what you think. The advantage is that two pages don't need to be edited to be kept consistent. When one is done, the other is automatically. If you don't like it, simply revert the edit on the List of episodes page. The season articles could be left alone because the alt1=/alt2= fields in ((episode list)) have now been changed to WrittenBy= and DirectedBy=Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have to say, I don't like it. The list sections of the transcluded articles are not FL quality. One episode even has a copyedit tag. Also, I'm pretty certain we aren't supposed to have summaries in the main list. While I appreciate the effort to improve the articles (And you did improve the season articles) I'm going to revert the main list. *SIGN* 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ooops. OK, if you look now at the revision I made, the summaries shouldn't be there. I forgot to change one line of markup at ((episode list/Avatar)). Again, it's up to you, but you should take a look. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So, if you don't oppose, are you for it? *SIGN* 22:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Rau: personally, I like Matthew's edit. There are some things that might need tweaking (like the length of the prod. code column), and alternating colors need to be added, but it looks fine to me. Matthew: I doubt that release dates of individual episodes need cites. Even if they do, "General" has them listed in the IGN cites. --haha169 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • It's 2/1 now, I'll revert my revert. *SIGN* 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • This needs a lot of work right now (mostly the 3rd season box). Columns are invading each other and row height is all over the place too. Makes it look ugly. Also, would be nice for the columns of each box to line up (although even the old version didn't), just for more consistency. Derekloffin (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • (Edit conflict) The references are on the individual season pages. Remember they're transcluded. I made no changes to those pages, except to make the transcluding work. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Oh, yeah. I've removed the refs and ((cn)) tags. They are absolutely unnecessary. Who added them? On another note, Matthew, do you know how to retain color alternations?--haha169 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> Haha, I added the citation needed tags. They made all sorts of claims about global release dates that weren't mentioned on any website, so they need citations. I don't really care how they make the table look; I more care about the facts. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the final point, I must oppose at this time. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are no longer opposing, are you supporting or neutral? --haha169 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

  • Well, I'd still prefer to see the tables transcluded. I'm undecided on which way to !vote, but I striked out my oppose for now because while you are working on it, it shouldn't be archived just yet.
  • I have changed my mind about the colours. It's too much. We're Wikipedia, not Skittlepedia. We shouldn't just add colours without any good reason just to make things look pretty.
  • The FUR for Image:Avatar-TLAlogo.jpg is abysmal. It doesn't say why it should be used for this article or Avatar: The Last Airbender. Use ((ScreenshotU)), but also be aware that it doesn't aid the reader in identifying the episodes themselves, and so it fails WP:NFCC for this page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll update the Fair-use rationale. You're aware that the image was uploaded before image rules were so stringent? Nvm anyway, I'll get to work on that. --haha169 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The colors are for Visual Appeal, a requirement for FL. *SIGN* 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to change this discussion a little, if I can. I'm still not sure why this massive change to transclude was introduced and accepted. Anyone want to explain, because I'm solildly opposed to it. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuclear, this transclusion thing is just a test. Anyway, it is standard to include the production code, which was lacking in the first one. Tell me what you liked about the original table and we'll see what can be done to put it back. --haha169 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main purpose is for editing. With only one list to edit, it is much easier to keep the articles consistent with each other. But like Haha said, this is a work in progress, and I'm still a little wary of it. *SIGN* 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main purpose is for editing. With only one list to edit, it is much easier to keep the articles consistent with each other. But like Haha said, this is a work in progress, and I'm still a little wary of it. *SIGN* 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea was introduced by me because a number of other Featured Lists also do it, especially the more recently promoted ones. Transclusion gives the advantage of only having one page to edit, rather than two, but having the same information on both pages. I made the edit to the page because it seemed like the contributors were having trouble understanding what I meant. Does transcluding need to be "accepted"? I was WP:BOLD made the change, and it was reverted, which I said right here to do that if the major contributors were unhappy with it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Matthew, you did nothing wrong. It was a fine edit. We just need to know how to create alternating colors. --haha169 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I've said, I really don't see the need. They add nothing to help provide information, the list is just as visually appealing with only the table headers coloured and using the LineColor= field of ((Episode list/Avatar)). If you must though, you can use TopColor=. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you. I'll use that code. It'll be in my sandbox for now. --haha169 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Never mind. I am even more confused now than before. Nuclear, can we please use the table propsed by Matthew? The only issue here is alternating colors, and it's not a big problem. All of your other concerns are addressed. --haha169 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The alternating color lines reinforced the feeling of Water/Earth/Fire.
Chapter # made it easier to count which episode in the season it was. Inserting the production code instead would solve this, I suppose.
My citation needed tags and references were removed. They need to be there. Nearly half the dates are wrong if you just use the "general references," as a lot of them use Global release dates, which are earlier than the US. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IGN uses Global release dates - and that is what we're trying to achieve here. I'm not sure I understand you. So the only problem here for you is alternating colors? We're working on that. Wait a bit... --haha169 (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? See the Black Sun episodes for example. We give them as being released on the 23rd and 26th, but IGN gives the US date of Nov 30th. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just looked and seems the IGN reference and the dates given don't match up right now. Derekloffin (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually exactly why I added the cn tags in the first place. Please don't tell me they were removed off of the original season 3 page. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I compared only the first couple episodes from Season 3 with IGN, and they matched up. As they go on, though, it differs. I'm not a long-time editor of these series of articles, so I'm not so sure what's happening. Rau? --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Season 1 and Season 2 both use IGN as the ref - I'll go and re-write the Season 3 table to match up correctly. I think that the current date listed there is U.S. release - we need global. --haha169 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from what IGN says, and what was said back then, it seems that IGN.com only uses US dates... TV dates at that. What happened back then was that the UK decided to air Avatar Book 3 episodes one through nine in one week, in the US we were only on five or six. To reflect this, we started using international dates on the list. Then DoBS cropped up with rumors of it coming from The Netherlands and Belgium, I never saw a source for that, but the episodes were there so I accepted it. Then episodes twelve and thirteen aired in Canada and we just started using global air dates. THEN Nick decided to release Boiling Rock on DVD first so we switched to global release dates... It's all very confusing in a "had-to-be-there" kind of way... If you guys want to switch to USTV dates... I'm all for it. *SIGN* 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need whatever refs provide. If they don't provide global release dates, then we use USTV release dates. Any opposition goes to the talk page. Thanks. Glad that's cleared up. Now we need alternating colors and everything's good to go. --haha169 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Haha. I think US release dates would be optimal for this, because of the ease of citabilty. Do you think that going back through the talk page archives would have any possible help if we wanted to use Global release dates (because we really should)? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't, there never were any posted. I remember that time vividly and no one ever posted a source, it was all word of mouth. *SIGN* 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) (Multiple edit conflicts) Because the series is American, you could use Original US Airdates, as long as you state that that is what they are. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Matthew, your suggested table has now been implemented. Any more concerns? --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break

I've lost my mind trying to follow this. Anyway, there is a proposal to just use US release dates, due to verifiability issues. All those in favor, say support. All those opposed, say oppose. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Support NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good idea on a FLC page. The closing director may think that they are opposes and supports to the FLC nomination by accident. But I approve of using US dates. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of using US dates. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say use US dates as well. Perhaps make a note that some releases were earlier in other territories, but for verification reasons stick to the US dates. Derekloffin (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I support as well per above mention. --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. And it's already implemented because thats what the season article used. *SIGN* 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table still says "Original Airdate". How do you change it? --haha169 (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, give me five more minutes.... :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Well, this big conversation seemed to finish up. What process is it to get an article to FL anyway? Do we wait for an external reviewer to come by or is Haha/Matt able to mark it as a FL? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I reread the guidelines for updating into a FL When the director of the FLC feels that all concerns have been addressed, and the article meets the criteria, then it will be promoted. If not, it will not be promoted and this page will be archived. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support making a FL I've been a contributor to this article (not minor or major) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support it as well, I have since the nom. *SIGN* 03:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still:

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More