Talk:Katara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of any rants, reviews, or any other forum like topics.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katara article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This page has a linked list all current and archived topics for easy searching and browsing.


Contents

[edit] Katara's necklace

Did anyone else notice that Katara had a different necklace in the comic con trailor.

yah she did but its only part of her whole fire nation disguise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.193.186 (talk) 15:13, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing required

the "waterbending progress" section is OUT OF CONTROL. this isn't supposed to be an episode synopsis, it's a log of advances in her waterbending ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.190.244 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I never understood why everybody as a sort of synopsis in their articles, but Katara as a waterbending progress log?--Tosta mista (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't get it either. Aang has a biography with summarised synopsis for the 3 books, and a separate section for bending. But in Katara's case it doesn't allow for a bending category now, and once the relationships section get removed (like in aang's case) the page would be kinda lacking >.> I vote for modifying the waterbending progress section to be like aang's mini biography. Anyone else?--Secretss (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should create a separate section for her abilities. Several of the other main characters have such a section and Katara has evolved from a waterbending novice (at best) to a very strong waterbender. She's not the most popular character, but she's worthy of a section. If she displays any new ability we can add that ability to this section.

[edit] Relationships

The relationship section in Aangs article has been removed due to being considered original research, only fair that Katara and all the other characters have their relationship sections removed as well, as all relationship content seems to be considered original research by Wikipedias standards. [/sarcasm]. Can anyone get the Aang relationship section back? 189.32.153.180 (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and the reason Katara's relationship section isn't off yet is because we don't have the information that we want on the page yet. We have to expand the article first to include the required materials before we can remove the relationship section or the article will be extremely short. The relationship section currently takes up almost a third of the article. I wanted to block it out it just now but removing a big chunk of text at one go just doesn't seem very nice. --Secretss (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Then get the relationship section of the Aang article back, it's only fair. 201.37.60.119 (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Relationship sections are against wp policy because it is 'in-universe'. It belongs on a fan site, not here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Her relationships to Aang, Zuko, and Toph are very essential. Someone please rewrite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.12.101 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ugh this makes me sick that people removed the section look at other nick toons Danny Phantom has relationship sections now the articles on the characters are all to short AHHH!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.25.128 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone trying to get those articles up to a good rating? I do not believe so, otherwise those sections would not be there. Rau's Speak Page 10:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KataraOctopusForm.jpg

Image:KataraOctopusForm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

I am changing image size. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot overview

Shouldn't the Waterbending progress section be renamed and redone to Plot overview? Her Waterbending progress could then be mentioned in an abilities section? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it should. Ill get on that. Rau's talk 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I will try to help too. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
How does it look so far? I am writing Book 3 now, but I want to know if I should do it a bit differently. Rau's talk 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, nice job. I was unsure how to tackle it seeing as she has only been major parts of insignificant events so far. Rau's talk 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am just now seeing your question. Thanks! You did good on the Book 1 and 2 sections. Anyway, I was planning to tackle this article after Azula anyway. What about trying to get this one to Good Article status? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't FC the goal for every article anyway? Rau's talk 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I meant giving extra effort to the article. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Kay, but you owe me lunch afterwards. Rau's talk 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Character Reception

I wasn't sure how much of the character reception is actual sourced stuff and how much is vandalism, but a lot of it seems like it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairith (talk • contribs) 21:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There isnt anything in there, if you are talking about that brief inclusion of vandalism material, it has already been removed. Rau's talk 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that what I was referring to. Sairith (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Katara action figure

Alot of Avatar fans have asked in Toy stores about why Katara does not have a action figure. The company that produces the Avatar figures have replied with stastic clamming Female action figures do not sell as wel as Male action figures. Should we have this on the wikipedia page? it ansers the Avatar fans quistion for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.105.214 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be there, but the source was no longer good so it was removed. Rau's Speak Page 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag on Article

This is in response to a query posted by User:Tintor2.

I'm afraid that it is not the tense and is keeping that tag on the article. It is the fact that events from the show are described from a real-world perspective. Take the first sentence of the Plot Overview section: "Katara grew up as the mature, motherly figure of her family and tribe." A good way to convert this specific sentence is to ass "In the show," to the beginning. Do you see what I am getting at? (However, do not overuse the "In the show" phrase. It gets old really fast.) — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abilities

The newly added abilities section was removed due to it being OR and partly inaccurate. Bending, all bending, is a form of Martial Arts. Saying that she is fighting is inaccurate. It is unsourced. If I felt like stretching it I could say some of it was also POV. Rau's Speak Page 01:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, these sections are always going to find a way back into the articles; ever since we removed them, people automatically put it back in, since they have been there so long. I guess we are just going to have to removed them constantly until we change the norm. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw what the author of this section wrote and it was not that far off. All bending is martial arts but not all martial arts is bending. Katara's a great bender but I've never seen her battle without bending. It sounds like a lot of people want to add an abilities section but for some reason they can't. Instead of deleting the whole section; how about writing up an abilities section, like most of the other major characters on the show have on their articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.60.95 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, not all martial arts are bending, but to say she can't fight with out bending is OR. If she made the movements of bending even if she wasn't bending, she would display fighting capabilities. What was written was not far off, but it wasn't up to standard either. Rau's Speak Page 00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, you are all arguing the wrong point. Whether it is OR or not, unless the information is a crucial point that directly affects the plot of the story, it should not be included. This pretty much applies to almost everything that was in the abilities section. Even if you could come up with policy-compliant information for the abilities section, the information probably could be integrated into the plot summary section anyway. In other words, there is really no way to generate an abilities section that improves the article. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Abilities should be added as a section to the info box Template:Infobox Avatar: The Last Airbender character rather than a section in the article. Its obviously notable to the article as it is about what the character can do, for example on Katara's entry it would list Waterbending and any other notable abilities, such as bloodbending if you guys so desired. A brief entry would suffice to sum up abilities. Sadly I know not how to add sections to templates otherwise I would have already done so, help would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. In fact, I think at one point we had this place in the infobox, but it disappeared at some point. I think it would be a good idea to reinstate it. Are there any objections to this? — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm for a total revamp of the template. Rau's Speak Page 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Maybe we should take this to the template talk page? — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I brought it up there as well, go here, [1] to talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that someone has added Katara's abilities into a section of the article, I think we should allow this information to stay UNTIL an abilities section is added in the info box. And even at that point it would still be reasonable to keep the section in the article as it does go into more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)