Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender

Potential topic expansion

So I was thinking about possibly expanding this topic to cover all of Avatar: The Last Airbender. I was wondering what articles ought to be included from Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender that would be enough to make this a FT. This is what I was thinking as a minimum:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender
• The season list and the three season articles currently listed.
• Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle
• Aang

Other possible inclusions are:

• List of characters in Avatar: The Last Airbender
• Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender
• List of Nations in Avatar: The Last Airbender (current in four seaparate articles, Fire Nation, Earth Kingdom, Water Tribe, and Air Nomads)
• Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender characters
• Really, anything in Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender.

So, what is necessary and what isn't? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I know this is still a proposal working its way through the system, but think about it in terms of overview topics - that's certainly how I'll be voting on it. I would suggest you create a new overview topic for the show, and leave this existing "Seasons" topic intact as a subtopic to it.

So then in the new topic, I reckon you'd need to include the following:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender (duh)
• List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
• Possibly Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle, though including this in the overview topic might cause the same problems as trying to include it in the existing topic did
• List of characters in Avatar: The Last Airbender
• And then I think looking at {{Avatar}} it might be sensible to create summary-style articles:
  • Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender (to capture the Universe section)
  • Avatar: The Last Airbender media or Avatar: The Last Airbender games (to capture the Franchise/Games section)

And then that'll leave you with every article either in the topic or within the scope of a non-lead article in the topic, and also with 4 potential subtopics to the overview topic, one of which already exists, and the other 3 you don't need to make any time soon ;) rst20xx (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the four nations and the bending article need to be merged into a "Universe" article before they could be included. None of those individual articles have a chance of passing GAN. --haha169 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Avatar topic

Avatar: The Last Airbender

11 articles

Universe

Characters

Aang

Episodes

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

The Last Airbender (optional)

Games (optional)

Here's how I would do it if you want to get the season finale in there. I actually don't think you need to maintain the separate subtopic for the seasons since there are only 3 of them. I'm also assuming that once the movie comes out you'll want to make a separate article for that. Until the movie is released, the article on the movie could still be in the topic as an audited article. The topic would also work without the movie and games articles as you can restrict the scope of the topic to just the tv show. You could also make subtopics for the characters and games. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The characters and games, with the exception of Aang, have nearly no chance of passing GAN. There simply isn't enough information or notability to continue having those articles. Some probably qualify for AfD. But besides that, your proposed topic is pretty good. I've made some minor changes.--haha169 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving ahead with the Universe article (User:NuclearWarfare/Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender), so I updated that one. Also, as the main character, Aang could be conceivably added to an overview topic. Since it is already a GA, I added it to the last.

That means that we would have 4 FLs, 2 GAs, and 2-4 Peer Reviewed articles, plus whatever the main article ends up being. How does this sound?NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you merged all the other separate characters articles into the main characters article and Aang is the only separate character article left you could include his article in the topic. But if there are any other separate character articles left they would also have to be gotten up to good article status and included or else the topic would most likely be considered incomplete without them on the grounds of "cherry picking". As for the audit process, permanently audited articles in a topic have been rejected. The only article you could have in the topic just be peer reviewed is the movie article, and only for up to 3 months after the movie release date. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Section 3c suggests that articles with limited subject matter, which the ones that can't pass GA but will pass AfD, are, can be added as peer reviewed articles. There is no possible way I could get Characters to FL status. There simply not enough reliable sources out there. Getting Universe to GA is also impossible, I believe, but I can try for that one.

Also, I believe that I'm not cherry picking the characters when I add Aang, because he is the main characters. Picking the main character and not the secondary ones isn't really cherry picking, is it? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was using the PR-icon in absence of others. I know that the movie article is the only one that could be temporarily audited. --haha169 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Nuclear, I think that avoiding the secondary characters are cherry-picking. If you want to avoid any controversy during the nomination process (trust me, that would make things much easier), then avoid using the secondary characters would cause problems. Anyway, Katara and Sokka kinda are main characters as well... --haha169 (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the permanently audited articles there is a strong opposition to them that you can see here. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact the rules now say you can't have permanently audited articles, following that vote. Erm it's worth remembering though that you don't need to include the characters, they can be left undealt with for a future subtopic. But you will need to make Universe good and make Characters featured - rst20xx (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You could also probably change the style of the character article from a list to a summary style article and get it up to good article status instead of featured list status if that would be easier. As far as reliable sources, there might be a lack of online sources, but I'm sure there are probably books written about the series that could be used as sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Avatar - The TV Show (temporary goal)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (TV show)

9 articles

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

/ Characters

Universe

Aang

Episodes

/ Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

For now, I think this is what I will shoot for. The lead article has to be moved back into GA status, and "Characters" and "Universe" need to be brought to FL/GA and GA respectively. If anyone is interested, I have Universe located at User:NuclearWarfare/Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender, which should be mainspaced in a few days to a week. It formerly contained the articles Air Nomads, Water Tribe, Earth Kingdom, Fire Nation, and Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender. List of characters will take a lot of work to do. So, does this sound reasonable? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think focusing on just the TV show is cherry picking by scope reduction. Not that videogame topics don't get away with this kind of thing all the time... rst20xx (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rreagan007 above suggested that focusing on just the TV show would be fine. Why do you think focusing on just the TV show is "cherry picking"? (which seems to be the bad word around here) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that limiting the topic scope to just the tv show would not constitute cherry picking. Rst20xx seems to think it may be. If this came up in a topic nom I would argue against him on this point. One problem with cherry picking is that it is not currently defined in the topic criteria. Eventually it probably will be, but for now it's a matter of opinion. It is true that the topic should not restrict the scope to an absurd, unnatural level in order to become featured, but I think limiting the scope to the tv show would be a perfectly natural thing to do. After all, limiting a topic to just the seasons of a tv show is even more arbitrarily small than limiting the topic scope to the entire tv show. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't like the fact that the name of the topic implies it covers the whole of Avatar, but in fact it'll be missing the franchise media, which on top of this would only require the addition of one list to have covered. OK, yes, there are already lots of examples of topics out there in the wild where the scope of the name is not fully covered by the content, but I'm not entirely happy about them, either - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place to have this debate, but I see the main article as being about the tv show with the other media stuff just thrown in there as sort of an ad on at the end to demonstrate what "other media" has resulted from the tv show. The name of the tv show is "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and that is the title of the article. The first sentence of the lead states, "Avatar: The Last Airbender (also known as Avatar: The Legend of Aang),[1] is an Emmy award-winning American animated television series..." 90% of the lead and the article is specifically about the tv show. I guess this is just a difference of opinion, but I think the article fits very nicely as the lead article of a topic about the tv show. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, that only 10% of the lead is about franchise stuff, and maybe about 10-15% of the article is too. But then if we add a franchise article to this topic, it would be just 1 in 10 articles, or 10%!.... rst20xx (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think adding a franchise article would be fine. I just don't think it would be required for the topic to meet the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-named the title. It doesn't constitute as cherry picking as long as every article within the title's scope is covered. Every TV show-related article is suggested here, so we're fine. I've also replaced the FA stars with FL stars where needed...for some reason, that bothers me. :P But it's just me. --haha169 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update Just for those of you helping out here but aren't in-tuned with recent events with these articles, I'd just like to say that Sozin's Comet is at FAC and the characters list is well on its way towards FLC. If they pass, then we could nominate and pass this topic without too much trouble, right? --haha169 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See below; I think we need Universe, but perhaps not, as it isn't vital to the topic. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update as of March 16

Goal and where we are now if it hasn't met that goal

Avatar: The Last Airbender (TV show)

9 articles

() Universe

Aang

Episodes ^(subtopic)

() Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

() Characters

So it looks like Universe and Characters are the ones that we still need. Characters is having a major rework done by haha169 (talk · contribs) and me, and Universe will need to be massively cleaned up, and real world connections will have to be added. But we aren't doing all that bad. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking we could find a way to not include Universe, though it is still highly unlikely. There is simply no way that it could make it past GAN...at least I don't think so. (That's what I thought about Characters previously, but it doesn't seem like it now). --haha169 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We have at least some of the developmental stuff. If we trim it down, I suppose we could give it a shot. Or, we could try without it first, and then add it as a supplemental nomination. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I still wonder: Aang is here, yet all the other characters aren't. How are we going to explain that? --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Aang is the main character, and so can be included. He's essentially the icon for Avatar. No other character comes close in importance. He's included as "Main character," not one of the characters. I think that is good enough rationale. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this conversation here shows quite clearly that what you guys are doing is cherrypicking. You're starting with the quality of the articles and then trying to define the topic round that, not starting with a sensible definition of the topic and seeing which articles need including based on that definition - rst20xx (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, there are definitely some articles that need to be included for this to be comprehensive, and others that don't need to be. I'm not sure how discussing which ones are necessary constitutes as "cherrypicking." NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but things like "How are we going to explain that?" suggest to me which way round the logic is going. Also changing the name to "TV series" seems to be cherrypicking by scope reduction too. It does count as cherrypicking if the scope doesn't fit with the lead in a natural way. I don't think this fits, I think the motive for the change is simply to cherrypick - rst20xx (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing, however, with changing the name to "TV series" is that the article itself describes mainly just the effects of the TV series, and any spin-offs it may have caused. It is perfectly acceptable (just like Carnivale) - but I personally don't think Aang should be there. Oh, and with the exception of those "franchise" articles - which aren't even canon, and some of the character articles (some of which could pass AfD), every single article is listed here.--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He's the main character of a TV Series; I think that is necessary enough. I would think that Master Chief would be necessary for an overview on Halo, or Naruto for an overview topic on Naruto (manga). Similar vein here, I believe. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rst:In any case, the precedent for changing the name to "reduce the scope" has been done many times - in most every video game topic. Legend of Zelda titles is a perfect example of this. The series article describes not only the titles but the characters, music, etc., and they all have articles. Same with Chrono titles, Devil May Cry titles, etc. This might not have been done with TV show topics yet; but isn't it not the exact same thing? --haha169 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear: He is the main character of the series. Yes. But so is Katara. And Sokka. And Toph. And Zuko and Iroh and Azula. What about them? The Halo characters FT includes all characters with an article. They should be completely excluded, IMO, and tried for a Characters GT later on. (Or tested at AfD) --haha169 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Aang is clearly the one that the series focuses the most on. While the others do have focus placed upon them, I would argue that they are rather secondary main characters that do not measure up to Aang's importance. For those who have read Harry Potter: Harry is to Hermione as Aang is to Katara. While Hermione is necessary to the plot, it is clearly Harry that is is the main character. Harry Potter could survive without Hermione. It couldn't without Harry. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read Harry Potter, and Harry would never have survived w/o Hermoine. Polyjuice potion in Book #2? And who was the person who cast all the protective spells in book #7 that kept Harry safe from the Death Eaters? Anyway, off topic...off topic... I've got an idea that I've put on your talk page. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Those have reduced the scopes to just "titles" or just "albums" to use another example, which I'm not entirely happy with either, but having said that I think the equivalent here would be to reduce the scope to just "seasons", not what you're proposing here, which is new and half way in between the two. Besides, all you'd need to write is one extra "media" list and then you can safely subtopic all the franchise stuff to that anyway - rst20xx (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still ok with the scope being the tv show, but having the Aang article in the topic concerns me. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda confused as to why, given that you proposed it in the first place. Can you explain why you changed your mind? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. I assume that you are referring to Aang being in the topic. The link you gave shows that I wasn't the one who added Aang to that topic box. Actually, it looks like it was you that added Aang to that topic box 4 days later. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And...this is when my face meets my palm. In any case, I think the best course of action is to nominate this with Aang in due course, and see what people think. If the consensus does not agree with adding it, there will be no need to. Simple as that.

Well, enough of this, I actually have to get the articles to those standards now. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'm just trying to be helpful. And I'm not necessarily saying that I would personally oppose the nomination on that. I just have a feeling that others will oppose on that ground saying it is cherrypicking. But maybe I'm wrong. Happy editing! Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the scope to "TV shows" only will certainly set a precedent in the "Arts" regard, but the "Video Games" and "Music" sections have already done this - so I'm not sure what the big deal is. --haha169 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)