Template talk:Infobox Avatar: The Last Airbender character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
This article is supported by the Avatar: The Last Airbender task force. (with unknown importance)

Contents

[edit] Aliases Field

Relevant content imported from Talk:Aang

I say we take the alias catagory off the character templates at all. Doesn't really apply to Avatar too much... -Dylan0513 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All they seem to do is cause arguments. I nominate it be taken off too. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got no problem with it so long as I don't start seeing "The Blind Bandit", "The Blue Spirit" or "The Dragon of the West" being listed under their character's "Position" category, which was what was happening before "Aliases" was added. Sage of Ice 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I vote that it be taken off. It's really not that important, and if you want the aliases in there so badly, we can stick them in the Trivia. Raven23 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We're dealing with a visual medium here, and appearances do matter. Currently, listing everything makes the infobox look too cluttered. Personally, I still say I'd prefer to list the more significant aliases but leave off the minor ones, but since that's apparently unacceptable for some editors, I'd rather just remove the thing all together.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with keeping only the significant ones is that not everyone can agree on whether or not an alias is significant. It's not worth the argument, I don't think. Raven23 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Appearences are everything. But cheap one-liners aside there are some aspects that apply to a show more than others and due to its particular execution, aliases and aren't all that prominant in this show. Though it would be a shame to get rid of Zuko's Blue Spirit (as plenty though it would never resurface on its first occassion and like several other things, the creators probably didn't originally plan for it to) or Iroh's Dragon of the West, as we're about to go into a book called "fire". So basically it'd be nice to keep those two and do away with the rest. ~Father's Wish 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fyre:
If you refer to me, then you have your facts mixed. I told you I would be fine with "Significant Aliases" being used instead of just plain "Aliases". In fact I was the one who suggested the whole idea in the first place, you just replaced "Important" with "Significant". Considering how I was the only other editor on that topic that discussed that with you, I do not know where you got the slanderous thought that an idea I myself suggested is "unacceptable" to me. You may wish to review what I typed before proceeding with allegations.
Father's Wish:
Keeping some aliases over others is a double standard that is only acceptable if we use the "Significant Aliases" solution that I have already proposed before and which Fyre somehow thinks I am against. Otherwise, all aliases must go if the whole category on the infobox goes.
And like I said before, if it's not under some form of "Alias" category on the infobox, there is no place for "Blue Spirit" or "Dragon of the West" or whatnot on anything except under the trivia section or somehow entwined in the stories section. They are not a "Position". Sage of Ice 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I still really just don't agree with this idea that saying just aliases automatically means we MUST list every single one, but I think we just have the agree to disagree on that one. Anyway, I don't think its necessary, but I'm willing to add the word "significant" if that's where the consensus goes.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be "Notable Aliases" if you prefer... it's what the comic book pages do. Even then, they still list some pretty unimportant aliases anyway (such as "Mr. Friese" for Iceman). Doesn't seem to be a problem there and they have loads of high-traffic pages.
I stand by the notion that you presented simply because I don't like to omit stuff unless there is an imposed limitation. "Notable" or "Significant" would thus create that limitation. It creates a visible standard which explains why some aliases aren't present. That choice is acceptable to me. Omitting an alias from simply the "Aliases" field makes it seem like it's a refusal of the fact, and that's something I just don't support. Adding on "Notable" or "Significant" just categorizes the fact in order to explain the omission. So that's where I'm coming from. Sage of Ice 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If having an alias section means putting what were essentially one-time jokes such as "Pipinpadalopsicopolous" on a character's overview, I'm entirely against them. Even if it wasn't a joke to the gang, a name like that... just looks wrong and unencyclopedaic in an overview template. - Joshua368 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Alias field, take 2

Starting a new section for this since the old discussion seems to have died and nothing came of it. There seems to be a consensus that aliases should be limited to - and defined as being limited to - only notable aliases. Things like "The Blue Spirit", "The Dragon of the West" and "The Blind Bandit" are all names known by a significant number of people in the Avatar world, are in use for a significant time, and add flavor to the character's article. Names taken for limited use and are known to a limited audience [such as the gate guards of Omashu or the bouncers at a royal party in Ba Sing Se] are not notable enough to be included. If this is something that everyone agrees on - and this seems to be the case - then I will edit the template and the pages as appropriate. I will likely do this by the end of the week if there is no discussion, based on the original consensus. Harukaze 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Harukaze 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age

I've commented out the Age section of this template. There is a series of edit wars sprawled out over several pages regarding the ages of various characters. In virtually no case is the age of the character -that- important, though I welcome arguments to the contrary. For the most part, knowing whether the individual is an adult or a child/teenager is sufficient, and that much should be apparent from the article/section. This should, once and for all, end the war going on regarding ages. If it is deemed that the Age section is important, I request that someone working for the project finds a definitive source on their ages, otherwise we're just going to see a slew of reverts ad nauseum. Harukaze 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good intentions, but I feel it's a bad result. As a proud participant of these immature edit-wars, I must point out that these edit wars are people adding/editing age entires with unsourced (Ty Lee is 16 years old), preposterous ("Zuko is 23 years old") , or helplessly vague (Middle-aged) information; others then remove this unsourced info and either re-add sourced info or leave the entry blank if no source exists. I find these edit wars extraordinarily tiresome, not to mention irritating (I honestly do not get how people can be so determined to re-add info which they know to be incorrect and which they have been told will be removed), but if we do have a source for these ages (And some, believe it or not, we actually do; although for some characters, like Zuko, having sources brings up an all new set of issues) then it should be noted in the template. No, it's not of critical plot importance, but neither is their eye color, and gender can be just as well determined from the article as their age group. JBK405 06:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abilities?

Shouldn't there be a section quickly addressing special abilities that character has, such as metal bending, blood bending, or bending of any of the four natural elements? Like Waterbending or Earthbending?Kuro Woof 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion yes. It's part of the plot and what makes the character unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.60.95 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)