Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Production process per "episode".
"Producing the series is a lengthy process, taking about 10 to 12 months per episode." There has to be an error with this, I would suggest season or book instead of episode, but will not edit it as I am not 100% sure. darrennie (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's correct, but I understand your confusion. They're working on more than one episode at once. You see, once the writers have written episode 1, they don't just sit around for ten months doing nothing; rather, they begin work on episode 2.--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I read Mike DiMartino's quote in the comments for the link you provided, and regarding the very topic he answered "we do work on several episodes at the same time, but it still takes 10-12 months per episode from coming up with the story to final picture and sound. Book 2 (which is 14 episodes) will end up taking close to 2 years by the time everything is completed." Thanks for the quick response to this In Donaldismo Veritas--darrennie (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for running this past the talk page, Darrennie! Here's a super-rough way to visualize the production:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Writing Recording Direction Storyboard Storyboard Animatic Revision Animatic Revision Animation Animation Post prod. -- -- -- Writing Recording Direction Storyboard Storyboard Animatic Revision Animatic Revision Animation Animation Post prod. -- -- -- Writing Recording Direction Storyboard Storyboard Animatic Revision Animatic Revision Animation Animation Post prod.
- Matt Groening says of the Simpsons: "It takes 6-8 months to do one episode."
- Pendleton Ward says of Adventure Time: "I can tell you it it’s about nine months per episode. But in animation, everything’s sort of overlapping all at the same time."
- Matt Groening says of the Simpsons: "It takes 6-8 months to do one episode."
- Hope that helps! And while Donaldismo explained it, this question has come up before, so I thought I'd create a visual aid to preempt any confusion for others next time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great visual, Cyphoidbomb! I, too, hope this will clear up any confusion on this point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing like a visual aid to clear the mud, thanks for this. darrennie (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- You both are welcome! Thanks for the acknowledgements! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Character images?
At Wikipedia:Non-free content review#The Legend of Korra, I've asked:
- In the article feedback, many readers write that they miss images of the characters. My question is - would it be NFCC-compliant to provide such (unfree) images, provided that every pictured character and the process of their creation (influences, models etc.) is discussed? (There are sources for that.)
Editors of this article are invited to comment there also. Sandstein 11:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- My advice would be if we wanted to do a character image would be to find a single group shot since a single image would be much easier to justify that multiple images. Ie something like List of Dragon Ball characters, or List of Naruto Characters etc. The only way I could be images for individual characters being acceptable would be if there was enough coverage to make a separate article for that character.--64.229.164.162 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few group shots hosted or used on the various official Nickelodeon websites, though not one that has all the characters. The most comprehensive picture I can find is of the "family tree", see [1], which I believe comes from an official source (it was the first picture to show Bumi and Kya, to my knowledge), but I am unable to find it used on any English Nickelodeon site (though I did find a German version of the graphic on the Nickelodeon Germany website). Or we should just go with a more aesthetic shot that includes some of the leading characters, like this one (used on the Nickelodeon Germany website, but hosted elsewhere): [2]. Thoughts? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's a promotional image of the lead characters at [3] which we may want to use. Sandstein 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I like the last image. The family tree does not include the main character Korra so one is pointless. The other group shot is good but misses Asami as a major charactet needs inclusion. The other group shot includes her so is better IMO. While the new friends image is not perfect (it misses some good secondary characters, and the major villians) it is the best of the three and should be used at least for now. We can easily replace it if a better image comes up.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's a promotional image of the lead characters at [3] which we may want to use. Sandstein 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few group shots hosted or used on the various official Nickelodeon websites, though not one that has all the characters. The most comprehensive picture I can find is of the "family tree", see [1], which I believe comes from an official source (it was the first picture to show Bumi and Kya, to my knowledge), but I am unable to find it used on any English Nickelodeon site (though I did find a German version of the graphic on the Nickelodeon Germany website). Or we should just go with a more aesthetic shot that includes some of the leading characters, like this one (used on the Nickelodeon Germany website, but hosted elsewhere): [2]. Thoughts? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Books vs. Seasons
There seems to be some back and forth going on about whether we refer to each season as a "book" or a "season". I'm of the opinion that we should be referring to each season as "season" to avoid in-universe language. We're talking about a television series, not actual books, so for our overviews and lead, tables, and other key areas, "season" should be used. I can, however, see another possibility, which is to reference the seasons as books, if and only if we feature proper capitalization and quotation marks (or is it italics? What would the MOS say?), a la "Book Two" or Book Two. The article on Star Wars seems to allow for use of Episode IV. Anyhow, I don't think it's proper encyclopedic style to casually refer to the seasons as books. Them's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Book Two is the title of the season, but it's still a season, not a book. We should therefore call it either "season 2" or "Book Two". Sandstein 19:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree as well. Similar reasoning applies to calling episodes "chapters"; generally, they should be referred to as "episodes". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've edited the article in accordance with this discussion ("book" remains for proper nouns like "Book One", "Book Two", etc., but not elsewhere). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- My only concern: are the terms synonymous? I thought (and I could be wrong) that they were planning on doing multiple "books" per season. If that's the case, we could be changing the meaning by changing the terms.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, they're synonymous, see #Book 2 and season 2 above. Sandstein 22:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone know whether Book One, Book Two should have quotation marks or be italicized? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Book One, etc. are the title of the seasons. I remember reading that titles of "television serials" should be italicized, so I suppose that applies to season titles too. Sandstein 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone know whether Book One, Book Two should have quotation marks or be italicized? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Got it, sounds good then.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not trying to come in and sound rude, but you guys are over-thinking this too much and because of it, wrong information is now displayed on the pages, and when it is corrected, you guys are reverting. The source DIRECTLY from the shows creator, which you guys even use in the articles prove it. The Books are not the seasons, they are arcs within the seasons. Books 1 and 2 are Season 1, and Books 3 and 4 are Season 2. That is directly from the shows producer because of how the network runs. They are choosing to produce two separate story arcs per season, but there are still only two seasons. --Shadow (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- What of the sources discussed at Talk:The_Legend_of_Korra/Archive_2#Book_2_and_season_2, especially the press materials from Nickelodeon calling it "season two"? Nickelodeon's own word about what it considers to be a season surely is more credible than Konietzko's prior characterization of what Nickelodeon considers to be a season. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. All recent published sources refer to the Books as seasons. Konietzko was referring to an internal accounting convention at Nickelodeon that has little to do with how the series is presented to the public. Sandstein 07:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- @ShadowRanger:You don't sound rude to me. I hope I don't sound rude to you.
Maybe I'm not clear on this issue: This is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for casually promoting the show's stylized/proprietary subdivisions. The Empire Strikes Back might be "Episode II", but it is a film first, and is typically referred to as such. I think that while the editors above and I seem to agree on the exclusion of "book" I think maybe we have different rationale. My objection is more literal and is based more on the rules against in-universe language, which aren't exactly at play here, but are somewhat related. If there is an accepted precedent for sub-dividing a television season into smaller sections, that an encyclopedia is required to refer to the creators' arbitrary nomenclature (book, episode, sandwich, etc.), I'm happy to be sk00led on that. What I'm not quite getting, is why we should casually refer to these subdivisions as books as though they were literal books, and not use some other expressions or distinctive punctuation (italics, quotation marks, etc) to clarify that "Book" is not the same as "book". A possible middle-ground for a data table: Seasons are clearly delineated 1 & 2, a new column divides the two seasons season into four "Books" (in quotations or italics or whatever is appropriate), and then the # of episodes, dates, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- No desire to promote the in-show language, just want the info to be correct. I think the confusion results from the original series where each in-show "Book" was the same as a season. Most sites would then assume that Korra would follow the same scheme and assume Book 1 is Season 1 and so forth. Just as there are multiple sources saying it's season 2, there are multiple sources showing two seasons. The upfront does indeed say Season 2, but this is the only time Nick has called it that to my knowledge. While they are the network, I don't think we should jump on the bandwagon of calling it season 2 when initial sources we're saying two seasons total divided into four story arcs. We should get more information from Nick and see how the episodes are actual assigned production codes before assuming. As for the other sources, I think the show's creator is far more reliable than the general media. --Shadow (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Konietzko's statement wasn't a declaration of what is or isn't a season, but rather a declaration of what Nickelodeon considers to be a season. Nickelodeon itself later released materials stating that "Book 2" is "season two". Given that Nickelodeon is a more reliable source for information on its own views than someone else is, and that Nickelodeon's statement is the most recent official word on the matter, Wikipedia should reflect Nickelodeon's terminology. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again though, this is the only time Nickelodeon has called it a season, and it was in passing in a press release. Not trying to discredit them, but again, still think we need more confirmation that a quick sentence than that. Not to mention, if we are going to discredit that blog based on that, why bother using it as a source to begin with? Seems hypocritical to cite somethings with it but then discredit other parts of the same post. --Shadow (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that Konietzko's blog is necessarily unreliable, but remember that it's a self-published source, and per WP:SELFPUB we may use such sources only "as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". How Nickelodeon numbers seasons may not be exactly part of that. Also, I don't doubt that Konietzko is correct when he said that Nickelodeon's accounting groups two Books together as a season for their internal accounting purposes because presumably they budget shows based on 26-episode-seasons. But that is quite understandably unrelated to what their marketing department and the press considers a season: as the series of episodes that screen in sequence in the course of a year and form a story arc. And since this common meaning of "season" is what most reliable sources use, and also because it saves us a great deal of explanation that does nothing for our readers' understanding of the series, it's the one we use in the article. Sandstein 06:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- episode codes also show that this is still part of season 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.209.94 (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot about this conversation due to being insanely busy with work. The above user makes a point. The Futon Critic is a popular source on many sites and has provided tons of accurate information over the years, and this, what seems to be internal data from Nickelodeon also shows season 1 production codes which is being used as a source on the episode pages. This is exactly why I say we need more than a one sentence mention about this matter. Production codes show these episodes as Season 1 which is what was originally reported when Korra was renewed the first time and lines-up with Bryan Konietzko. --Shadow (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- episode codes also show that this is still part of season 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.209.94 (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that Konietzko's blog is necessarily unreliable, but remember that it's a self-published source, and per WP:SELFPUB we may use such sources only "as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". How Nickelodeon numbers seasons may not be exactly part of that. Also, I don't doubt that Konietzko is correct when he said that Nickelodeon's accounting groups two Books together as a season for their internal accounting purposes because presumably they budget shows based on 26-episode-seasons. But that is quite understandably unrelated to what their marketing department and the press considers a season: as the series of episodes that screen in sequence in the course of a year and form a story arc. And since this common meaning of "season" is what most reliable sources use, and also because it saves us a great deal of explanation that does nothing for our readers' understanding of the series, it's the one we use in the article. Sandstein 06:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again though, this is the only time Nickelodeon has called it a season, and it was in passing in a press release. Not trying to discredit them, but again, still think we need more confirmation that a quick sentence than that. Not to mention, if we are going to discredit that blog based on that, why bother using it as a source to begin with? Seems hypocritical to cite somethings with it but then discredit other parts of the same post. --Shadow (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Konietzko's statement wasn't a declaration of what is or isn't a season, but rather a declaration of what Nickelodeon considers to be a season. Nickelodeon itself later released materials stating that "Book 2" is "season two". Given that Nickelodeon is a more reliable source for information on its own views than someone else is, and that Nickelodeon's statement is the most recent official word on the matter, Wikipedia should reflect Nickelodeon's terminology. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No desire to promote the in-show language, just want the info to be correct. I think the confusion results from the original series where each in-show "Book" was the same as a season. Most sites would then assume that Korra would follow the same scheme and assume Book 1 is Season 1 and so forth. Just as there are multiple sources saying it's season 2, there are multiple sources showing two seasons. The upfront does indeed say Season 2, but this is the only time Nick has called it that to my knowledge. While they are the network, I don't think we should jump on the bandwagon of calling it season 2 when initial sources we're saying two seasons total divided into four story arcs. We should get more information from Nick and see how the episodes are actual assigned production codes before assuming. As for the other sources, I think the show's creator is far more reliable than the general media. --Shadow (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- What of the sources discussed at Talk:The_Legend_of_Korra/Archive_2#Book_2_and_season_2, especially the press materials from Nickelodeon calling it "season two"? Nickelodeon's own word about what it considers to be a season surely is more credible than Konietzko's prior characterization of what Nickelodeon considers to be a season. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not trying to come in and sound rude, but you guys are over-thinking this too much and because of it, wrong information is now displayed on the pages, and when it is corrected, you guys are reverting. The source DIRECTLY from the shows creator, which you guys even use in the articles prove it. The Books are not the seasons, they are arcs within the seasons. Books 1 and 2 are Season 1, and Books 3 and 4 are Season 2. That is directly from the shows producer because of how the network runs. They are choosing to produce two separate story arcs per season, but there are still only two seasons. --Shadow (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, they're synonymous, see #Book 2 and season 2 above. Sandstein 22:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- My only concern: are the terms synonymous? I thought (and I could be wrong) that they were planning on doing multiple "books" per season. If that's the case, we could be changing the meaning by changing the terms.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](http://i.imgur.com/fblRSXl.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31500000/-New-Friends-Legend-of-Korra-avatar-the-legend-of-korra-31596080-893-587.jpg){kind=link}
I discovered two big mistakes on Zap2It today, while researching some show called Chowder. The first is that Zap2It didn't recognize a third season of the show, although other sources do. And, for S2E27, they listed "The Firebird Sweet; The Bubble With Billy" which turns out to be an episode from The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. I'm not pushing a POV one way or another, just saying that Zap2It, while reliable and generally accepted, and totally suitable for most of our flamewar needs, ohhh-ccasionally makes mistakes. But obviously, please do not consider this an earnest counter-argument to your WP:RS, Shadow. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes they do have mistakes every once in a while, but even official sites do. We are human :) This is exactly why I am saying we need more confirmation from Nickelodeon. They have only once referred to Book 2 as Season 2. If they truly do consider it Season 2 we need more confirmation of that. --Shadow (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's quite possible that the Book 2 episodes have S1 production codes. That would be consistent with Konietzko's blog entry indicating that Nickelodeon treats book 2 as part of season 1 for internal purposes. But that doesn't necessarily impact how we describe book 2 here. Per WP:V, we follow reliable third-party sources, and right now the media are clearly calling this season 2. Not following them would unnecessarily confuse our readers. What we should do is make note of Nickelodeon's internal numbering system as soon as we have a non-primary source address it. Sandstein 07:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- The US Copyright Office has some production codes, but doesn't interpret them. Sigh... [4]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it would impact how info is displayed here because the production codes are displayed here and they are part of the show. Media sources have also clearly called Book 2 part of season 1 (some of which I linked earlier), which follows Konietzko's blog and what tv listings websites are showing. Yes there are indeed media sources labeling it as season 2, but considering that it's been a year since Book 1 aired, it does appear to be a new season. This is similar to what people say about ABC Family shows. ABC Family likes to air their shows half a season at a time and sometimes people refer to every set of episodes as a season even when they are not. This is exactly the problem. There are sources backing up both point of views. --Shadow (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- The US Copyright Office has some production codes, but doesn't interpret them. Sigh... [4]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with "Book 2" being counted as a second season. However, since official sources close to the series count "Book 2" of the Legend of Korra as part 2 of Season 1, then we should treat it as such. If we really need to, we can set it up like we did with Season 6 and 7 of Futurama. In the case of Futurama, parts 1 and 2 of Season 6 and 7 are counted as both separate broadcast seasons. However, part 1 and 2 are more-so part of Season 6/7, instead of being their own main seasons. But yes, I would more than likely count "Book 2" as part of Season 1, instead of its own separate season. Even if it's a separate season that is being broadcasted, it's still part of Season 1. .-- »»»DavidTwo2012««« 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to see I have some back up after all. I think this may indeed be the case. I forgot about Futurama doing that, but other shows have done that as well (i.e. Pokémon (English dub), The Secret Life of the American Teenager). Not trying to discredit the media, but media gets things wrong or misinformed sometimes so they are not the ultimate authority on things. There are plenty of official courses showing it as season 1. --Shadow (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Right, and if the creators of the series announced sometime last year that "Book 2" would be part of Season 1, then that's pretty much enough information for me. I have to re-find the original source of this, but it was originally listed on the Wikipedia page for some time. Can't remember what happened to that citation, however... »»»DavidTwo2012««« 03:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is one of those "curse you to hell!" moments of "[[WP:RS]]", when we know intuitively that it is absurd to refer to a 12 episode stretch as a "season" when MOST other 22 minute series get a 26 episode order, even moreso when we're talking about a spin-off of another popular series, Avatar. I mean, sometimes you'll see a 20 episode season, or a reluctant 13-episode re-order of a doomed show, but the original Avatar did very well! But alas, rules are rules. I only hope we all remain civil after this tooth-and-nail debate! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Right, and if the creators of the series announced sometime last year that "Book 2" would be part of Season 1, then that's pretty much enough information for me. I have to re-find the original source of this, but it was originally listed on the Wikipedia page for some time. Can't remember what happened to that citation, however... »»»DavidTwo2012««« 03:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to see I have some back up after all. I think this may indeed be the case. I forgot about Futurama doing that, but other shows have done that as well (i.e. Pokémon (English dub), The Secret Life of the American Teenager). Not trying to discredit the media, but media gets things wrong or misinformed sometimes so they are not the ultimate authority on things. There are plenty of official courses showing it as season 1. --Shadow (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's quite possible that the Book 2 episodes have S1 production codes. That would be consistent with Konietzko's blog entry indicating that Nickelodeon treats book 2 as part of season 1 for internal purposes. But that doesn't necessarily impact how we describe book 2 here. Per WP:V, we follow reliable third-party sources, and right now the media are clearly calling this season 2. Not following them would unnecessarily confuse our readers. What we should do is make note of Nickelodeon's internal numbering system as soon as we have a non-primary source address it. Sandstein 07:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Cast and characters
The section on cast for book 2 seems to be a bit of a stub. Then again, maybe the cast and characters section needs to be readdressed in light of separate books receiving their own articles. Revising this section to only contain characters who appear in all of the Korra seasons. Finally, the "Book 2 recurring cast" table is misleading, for example the "Dark Spider Spirit" and "Wan" appear only a couple of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.67.75.93 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Tenzin
I know Amon's article was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources and only being important for 1 season, but Tenzin seems to be notable enough for his own article as the second most important character in Korra. I may make an article for him soon, but only if I recieve help from fellow editors. I don't plan on making ones for other important characters, but Tenzin already has a lot of background information and reception. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
List of episodes
Why is their no list of episodes page? Has someone just not got round to it? Most series, including ATLA have these, and MOS:TV suggests creating this page even before creating individual season pages, which already exist for LoK. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is, see List of The Legend of Korra episodes. Sandstein 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I looked at the navbox, I thought the word Episodes wasn't a link. My bad! Thanks for responding so promptly! - adamstom97 (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
GA?
I'm concerned about this page's GA status. It contains a lot of one- or two-sentence paragraphs, outdated info, and unsourced statements. Tezero (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Series Overview - Setting: need some rework
Quote: "The Legend of Korra is set in the fictional world of Avatar: The Last Airbender 70 years after the events of that series."
I think the structure of this sentence is a bit misleading, since a casual reader might cut it as "The Legend of Korra is set in the fictional world of Avatar:" and then gets stuck at "The Last Airbender 70 years after the events of that series."
It might be better to place 2 facts into 2 sentences like: "The Legend of Korra is set in the fictional world of Avatar: The Last Airbender. It takes place 70 years after the events of that series."
Quote: "The focus of the series is "bending," the ability of some humans (and animals) to telekinetically manipulate the element[...]"
As I see it, this is not completely true, since Firebenders are not just telekinetically manipulating existing fire, but they rather manipulate the energy in a way to create and use fire. However I'm not quite sure how it should be described accurately. -- 89.14.9.146 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Book 4: Balance
Today is has been announced OFFICIALLY that Book 4 will be titled Balance. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- Yes, the article reflects this. Sandstein 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources discussion concerning S4 titles
Please consider offering an opinion at Talk:The Legend of Korra (season 4)#Reliable sources for episode titles. Sandstein 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Mentions a future date in past tense.
This sentence is weird:
"Some production steps, such as color correction and retakes, continued up until the date of the series finale, December 19, 2014.[43]"
The cited source only mentions that they're still working on it. http://bryankonietzko.tumblr.com/post/104462825022/1028-days-ago-i-started-this-blog-with-a-post
It's a minor thing, but my guess is that whoever wrote this is not a reliable wikipedia writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.166.126 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
New Episodes
IP user @184.97.222.66: says the show is still airing on Nick.com. Though all the credible sources published that sister channel Nicktoons will air new episodes of the show. But the IP user doesn't agree with this. Nevertheless lots of credible says it started airing on Friday, Nov. 28 at 9pm on Nicktoons. If he doesn't provide a good explanation to back up his removal I'm going to re-add it.
- I understand fully what these articles say. However, they are very misleading. Nicktoons is indeed airing these episodes for the first time on TV. However, it is not their original release date. The articles mention that Korra will begin airing on Nicktoons on November 28...yet if you look at the release dates of Book 4 episodes they go back to Octoboer 3. That is because new episodes are premiered online via Nick.com first, and then aired on Nicktoons later. Thus, Nick.com is the original channel for episodes 35-52. --184.97.222.66 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Issue at Talk:Korra_(The_Legend_of_Korra)
Hey, since this article seems to have gotten it right, maybe it would do good to get your guys' thoughts at Talk:Korra_(The_Legend_of_Korra) which seems to be gripped over the issue of Korra and Asami's implication of a lesbian relationship. Tutelary (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Nuances worthy of discussing
So I'm aware of the Koraa/Asami romance situation, but I thought it might be useful to start a conversation since there's so much back and forth over the language lately, mostly from the eager fanbase. For example here where a user says that the two leave as "a couple". From what I understand (and correct me if I am wrong) the final episode depicts the two women taking each others' hands and (basically) walking into the sunset together. The exact meaning of this event came after the finale aired. So it seems to me that we should be first describing verbatim what happened, (that is, what can be seen, not interpreted) and explaining that closing shot from a real-world perspective, a la "In the final scene, Korra and Asami take each other's hands and leave for the Spirit World. After the finale aired, show creators explained that this final shot was intended to symbolize the two characters entering into the Spirit World as romantic partners, blah blah blah." I know that we already have language to that effect, but some users seem to be having a problem weighing what they have seen against what they have heard, or have come to understand. Anyhow, my comment may be meaningless since Sandstein, ChamithN, et al. are on the ball, but I figured I'd open the dialogue in case we could avoid more of the back-and-forth. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think most users jump to conclusion about Korra/Asami romantic interest as the ending was somewhat similar to the last airbender's ending. Nevertheless if creators confirmed that it's true then it should be mentioned in Wikipedia. However we have to state that the show creators confirmed it. Mentioning it on the plot saying "They entered the spirit world as a couple" "They started to develop feelings for each other" is wrong. Because it was never mentioned in the storyline. They just confirmed it afterwards.--Chamith (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- We currently address the avatar's romance(s) in three places: in the plot synopsis, we mention that they leave together (which is IMHO the correct level of detail at the one-paragraph-summary level); in the characters section, we mention the various romances and conclude with Korra's and Asami's; in the development section, we summarize Konietzko's post about how that ending came to be, and in the analysis section, we summarize the reviewers' assessment of that ending. In this way, the topic is approached in every section according to the aspect on which the section focuses, which is in my view the appropriate approach. Sandstein 20:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a social protocol for copying reference sections from one talk page to another?
I keep having to refer people to the Korra Talk page's Big List of Korra-Asami Relationship Sources. I think if I copied that around, maybe I wouldn't have to do it so often, because hopefully people would check the Talk pages of the articles they're editing before editing out LBGT-related material.
I bring this up not to specifically invoke the latest (above), but because variations of it keep happening on every Legend of Korra page and I keep having to spend time re-defending that material and getting it put back, when I'd rather be further improving the Asami Sato article or working on the big-list-of-characters page. But this is taking all of my editorial time, and it's getting frustrating, and that is showing up in how I interact with people on talk pages, because I get real tired of re-having the same debates over and over again. Solarbird (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's easier just to link: Talk:Korra#The Big List of Korra-Asami Relationship Sources. Otherwise it's a bit more complicated with respect to attribution, but mainly an issue of not cluttering up talk pages with redundant material. Sandstein 17:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
List of Legend of Korra Characters
Over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_characters I've been trying to get a discussion going about either modifying the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters page to include Legend of Korra characters, or starting a separate LoK characters page. After thinking about it a bit, I'm really leaning towards a separate page, just to keep things from becoming hopelessly unwieldy. The only other person to comment so far is also in that camp, but I wanted to throw it out here too. Thoughts? Solarbird (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is a separate series, even if there is some character overlap, so a new "List of The Legend of Korra characters" page is preferable over trying to integrate these characters in the other page. I am in support of making this split, and would be happy to help out with any cleanup or anything once it is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I could support this if there are enough editors who are confident that they can contribute enough out-of-universe content to make such a page look like an encyclopedia article rather than an accumulation of fancruft (detailed plot summaries, shipping minutiae etc.) and help remove any fancruft that appears. I'm however not yet convinced - and I'm relatively familiar with the series and the sources - that there is enough third-party material to make this topic notable and a page worthwhile. What would, for example, the entry on Mako look like apart from the plot summary? Sandstein 17:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the real issue. Separate pages is a good idea if the separate pages can stand on their own, and unfortunately I don't think they can. If you got a good set of source material for both, then I separating them is the way to go, but you need that essential component before seriously considering it. Derekloffin (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you pretty much described the existing List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters page. And I'm fine with renaming and expanding that one, but I'm worried about Endless Length of Article - the existing page is already insanely long. Do people collectively think one giant super-long page is better than two smaller but still very very long pages, all things equal? I don't want to start a page and have it immediately RFDed. Solarbird (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also I think without that we're likely to get a bunch of little separate pages (ala the entire cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender) for characters and this could preempt that. Solarbird (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the solution to overly long pages is trimming the fancruft, that is, stuff that is expected on fan wikis and sites but not in a general inerest encyclopedia. Remove all but the most concise description of characters' appearances, and most material not based on third-party sources, and you'll have a much shorter and more encyclopedic article. Sandstein 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- How about somebody starting a Draft or Sandbox article so we can see what it will be like and if it will work? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I volunteer my sandbox, I'm not using it for anything. User:Solarbird/sandbox Solarbird (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Commentary on the other talk pages (such as it is) are in support of a separate page for Legend of Korra characters, at least for now. I would like to suggest that we start a Legend of Korra Characters page, which can then be merged if people decide to do that. I would not oppose such a merge later, but I don't want to get into an argument with the existing page maintainers before we even start. Does that sound reasonable? Solarbird (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- No objection to working on a sandbox draft. But see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mako (The Legend of Korra), because another editor was less patient. Deleting these articles is no prejudice to working on a draft list. Sandstein 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the solution to overly long pages is trimming the fancruft, that is, stuff that is expected on fan wikis and sites but not in a general inerest encyclopedia. Remove all but the most concise description of characters' appearances, and most material not based on third-party sources, and you'll have a much shorter and more encyclopedic article. Sandstein 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I could support this if there are enough editors who are confident that they can contribute enough out-of-universe content to make such a page look like an encyclopedia article rather than an accumulation of fancruft (detailed plot summaries, shipping minutiae etc.) and help remove any fancruft that appears. I'm however not yet convinced - and I'm relatively familiar with the series and the sources - that there is enough third-party material to make this topic notable and a page worthwhile. What would, for example, the entry on Mako look like apart from the plot summary? Sandstein 17:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Big List of Korra-Asami Relationship Sources
Before editing and/or removing commentary on Korra and Asami's relationship, please, please, please first examine The Big List of Korra-Asami Relationship Sources, "Room for Interpreation" vs. "Room for Deniability", and Asami Sato: Lead Sentence Proposal. Many other editors working on this topic have repeatedly come to consensus on these matters; please consider that before removing material. Solarbird (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any way we can move this to the top of the talk page or as a box on here or something? Most new editors jumping onto this topic aren't going to read through the long walls of text we've built up on this topic just to get to this one note about the consensus already in place. Luthien22 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I approve of Luthian's idea - we need to make this as clear as possible for new editors. It's hard to understand what the sources are saying without reading summaries like these, while people often tend to talk about a topic as they experienced it themselves, at least for media like television series. ~Mable (chat) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible to make something "sticky" at the top of a talk page, but I recommend to wait until this becomes an actual topic of contention to the point where it becomes necessary. My impression is that the interpretation and description of the ending isn't seriously contested by editors right now. Sandstein 13:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've had to refight this battle or related ones (c.f. removing Korra's LGBT tags) on every Legend of Korra-repated page, often multiple times, since the finale. I've started making "RESET THE CLOCK, MR. GAETA" jokes at home. Trust me, it keeps being contested in one form or another. I don't know that it needs to be pinned to the top, but I wouldn't object, or object to it being moved higher. Solarbird (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible to make something "sticky" at the top of a talk page, but I recommend to wait until this becomes an actual topic of contention to the point where it becomes necessary. My impression is that the interpretation and description of the ending isn't seriously contested by editors right now. Sandstein 13:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I approve of Luthian's idea - we need to make this as clear as possible for new editors. It's hard to understand what the sources are saying without reading summaries like these, while people often tend to talk about a topic as they experienced it themselves, at least for media like television series. ~Mable (chat) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
LGBT categories removal
Removed by @Cyphoidbomb: were Category:American LGBT-related television programs and Category:LGBT-related animation. It's clear from the makeup of those categories that in neither case is a show required to be primarily LGBT-themed to be included; Paranorman is included in the latter, apparently on the basis of two lines of dialogue. If Paranorman is acceptable, Legend of Korra is as well. Cyphoidbomb also suggests that the only indication of any LGBT content was the final scene; I recommend looking at The Big List of Korra-Asami Relationship Sources on the Korra article talk page, many of which discuss Korra and Asami's developing relationship over Books 3 and 4. I further note the creators' joint comments on their relationship and suggestion that you rewatch those two seasons "without 'hetero glasses'" as support that this was not tacked on - they stated outright they'd started working towards it at the beginning of Book 3, with strict network limitations but network approval.
It is my opinion that these categories should not have been removed (particularly Category:LGBT-related animation) and I propose they be reinstated. Solarbird (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also note from the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs states that series be included "which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters." I assert that the lead character (Korra) and major supporting protagonist character (Asami Sato) meet that definition. The animation category does not include a qualification requirement statement. Solarbird (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- If there weren't significant depictions of LGBT themes, situations, problems, story arcs, in the series, then the inclusion of these categories are not warranted. If the creators of the series hadn't said anything about the final scene, it would be entirely interpretive that it was intended to suggest a romantic pairing. The metric for inclusion in the category should be a clear depiction that doesn't necessitate inference or an explanation after the fact. If Garry Marshall said tomorrow, "Fonzie was gay", I'd raise the same objection because the character was never depicted as gay, even if some of the things he did could be construed (today) as gay. Poorly-defined categories should be challenged to define according to to normal Wikipedia editing expectations, i.e. excluding original research as the defining factor, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, first, I beg of you, please, please, please go read the discussion about text on the Korra talk page, particularly "Room for interpretation" vs. "Deniability." which is a section header. Please. If the dialogue is not allowed, as we know it was not, according to the writers and creators, then excluding the rest of the text of the show other than the dialogue is unreasonable.
- You may also find relevant these sources all of which predate the writer/creator statements. Asserting it was "entirely interpretive" is certainly disagreed with by all of these, which are only some of the sources in the Big List I referenced above.
- TV.com (owned by the same people who own Nick) "If you replace Asami with a male character, not only is there not any ambiguity about the intention of the scene, but there's not any need for ambiguity either, since a kiss would've gotten through standards and practices in that context." http://www.tv.com/shows/avatar-the-legend-of-korra/community/post/the-legend-of-korra-series-finale-book-4-episode-12-episode-13-day-of-the-colossus-the-last-stand-141886896821/
- Den of Geek talks at the end of their review about how hard you have to work to pretend that wasn't a Korra/Asami relationship ending: http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/the-legend-of-korra/242272/the-legend-of-korra-book-four-finale-review
- Forbes: "The Legend of Korra now exists for the ages as a complete set, tracking Korra from being a cocky teenager with the emotional maturity of a high school freshman to her post-collegiate backpacking vacation with a lover of the same sex. ... A series revealing its openly gay Nickelodeon character in the last episode is certainly a way to spike the football when your core fanbase is the melodrama-craving annals of Tumblr, but it’s also the natural conclusion to a show’s fan base who was forced to grow up along with the series." http://www.forbes.com/sites/davegonzales/2014/12/19/the-legend-of-korra-finale-literally-made-fan-dreams-come-true/2/
- IBT: "Legend of Korra lesbian romance shocker? Korra and Asami end up together in series finale" http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/legend-korra-lesbian-romance-shocker-korra-asami-end-together-series-finale-1480381
- ScreenCrush: "The series’ final image, Korra and Asami walking hand and hand into a newly created portal, looking into each other’s eyes with emotion beyond friendship, then drifting into the unknown, will burn brightly in my memory forever. The idea that two characters—shipped to death by the Tumblr devotees—do have a deep love is one last bold move for ‘Legend of Korra,’ a show that made bold moves at every opportunity." http://screencrush.com/the-legend-of-korra-finale-review-day-of-the-colossus-the-last-stand/
- Autostraddle talks about all the queer coding they had assumed was queer baiting until it actually happened: http://www.autostraddle.com/korrasami-queer-representation-and-saying-goodbye-to-the-legend-of-korra-270141/
- Tor.com criticises calling the Korra-Asami relationship and show ending in particular "fan service:" "Because there are plenty of people who did see this relationship coming. The subtext was there—and before you go knocking subtext over text, let me remind you that subtext was often the only possible way to have non-heterosexual relationships in fiction for centuries. So it has to count, because for so many years it was literally the only thing that did count." See also my commentary about deniability vs. room for interpretation. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/12/legend-of-korras-finale-and-the-problem-with-qfan-serviceq
- There are many, many more. And again, all of these predate the creators' statements. The reaction was huge and immediate, and even sources like Forbes got it. It is against both intent and author statement to assert it does not qualify. Solarbird (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also strongly suggest you read the discussion at Asami Sato's page, under "Lead sentence proposal", wherein we talk about the significance of this specifically in relation to LBGT topics and come to consensus which most certainly meets qualifications for both of those categories. @Sandstein, Maplestrip, G S Palmer, and Luthien22: Solarbird (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your trying very hard, Solarbird :p I personally think that these categories should remain in place per the results of earlier discussion on Asami Sato's page (where Solarbird here has dragged me from), particularly the discussion that resulted in the following sentence to be put in the lead of that article: "The series's final scene, indicating the beginning of a romantic relationship between Asami and the female lead character, Korra, was unprecedented in its representation of LGBT persons in American children's television." From this consensus result, it seems clear that the show qualifies for those categories, at least until their guidelines are further developed (which should not be done simply to exclude one show)
- I don't know what kind of discussions have been had on this specific talk page, so I have limited knowledge of consensus established here. Either way, an LGBT lead character with a romantic ending should definitely indicate that these categories are fitting in my personal opinion. ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the categories "American LGBT-related television programs" and "LGBT-related animation" are appropriate for the article, because the series has been much discussed in terms of how its finale advanced the representation of LGBT people, specifically, in kids' TV. This makes it at least LGBT-related, irrespective of how much (or little) queerness was actually portrayed. Sandstein 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cool. Categories replaced. Solarbird (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- So I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree with the consensus in place that the categories remain. Although I completely understand where @Cyphoidbomb: was coming from, I agree with many of hte other editors that the relationship has been discussed enough outside of the show and is not up to interpretation enough to merit removing the categories. Luthien22 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I see arguments for both sides. LGBT issues were not a significant theme of the show, yet that ending left an impact that is reflected in our sources. I'd be against it I think if categories were tools used by general readers (as I think it would give a false impression of the show's actual content), but as categories are more editorial markers, I think it's reasonable enough. Snow talk 13:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cool. Categories replaced. Solarbird (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Mako and Bolin character names
We have a source! But I can't read Chinese charcters. http://atla-annotated.tumblr.com/image/91038442097 definitely has it. On comparison to this wanted poster from the series, I'm quite solid on Bolin is 愽林 - Google Translate agrees, coming up with "Bó lín" as translation. All the posters can be seen here; can anybody get Mako's name out of that? Solarbird (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it is a good idea to provide the Chinese characters here as part of the characters' name. The series is in English, not Chinese, and while the names appear in Chinese characters briefly and in the background, these are not in any way (as the parenthetical mention might lead readers to believe) the "original" names that have been translated into English. But we might mention somewhere that the written language(s) of the Avatar universe are rendered as Chinese in the series, and provide the names as examples. Sandstein 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, all the Avatar: The Last Airbender pages have them. And since Bolin doesn't have his own page I thought here would be better. But I could see only having them on the Korra page and not her entry here. Solarbird (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed them because they are out of place in this context. These Chinese characters are how the names are represented in-universe visually (in a very few places), but that is not conveyed by simply putting them in parentheses after the character (original) names. Doing so is just confusing to readers - why is there Chinese / why are there odd squiggles in this article? Is this a Chinese series? Is Korra a Chinese woman? That's another example of sloppy encyclopedic writing that fails to take into account that we write about these characters as parts of a fictional work, not as persons who have a biography. In this context, if we use these transcriptions, we must explain what they mean, and that needs actual prose and sourcing, not just a parenthesis. Sandstein 17:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I feel the same way about the way it was implemented. These Chinese names might have a place in the characters' own articles instead, though, but I have no idea how to implement them. They seem somewhat trivial anyway - I like including them someway, but they definitely don't deserve a place in the lead. ~Mable (chat) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- As to how to include them (if at all) do so by explicitly detailing the role they play ("Although the series is set in a fictional world and uses English for its dialogue, it utilizes Chinese characters in lieu of English orthography." Then associate the appropriate characters. I agree, it doesn't make for terribly smooth prose, but if it's going to be included, that's really the only way -- by being clear as to the mish-mash roles of language and orthography in the series. Snow talk 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to make for horrible prose. Simply putting "Bolin (愽林, in in-universe orthography)" would probably make it clear that those are the characters used within the universe to denote the character's name. It isn't very notable to go into detail either way, but making a short note of it probably works. I'll try to add this to Bolin's article right away and see how it looks. ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that "Bolin (愽林, in in-universe orthography)" is even kludgier, because we distract the reader from what interests them (what's the name of this main character?) with a very tangential aside that is of interest, if at all, only to the most devoted of fans. That's doing readers a disservice, and it's not even accurate: it's a matter of the writing system, not the orthography. I'll try to integrate a short prose explanation in the style section. Sandstein 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, I guess it's probably just best to keep it out entirely. I don't think it distracts too much in Bolin (The Legend of Korra) right now, but it doesn't really add anything either. It doesn't really matter to me, anyway. A too long sentence explaining this would be really intrusive, but as long as it's short without being misleading, it's fine with me. ~Mable (chat) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Orthography" is sometimes used in regard to the type of writing system employed (as opposed to conventions within the use of a given alphabet, syllabary, or logography); that was the sense in which I meant it. But a moot point; I think your edit is fine -- see bellow. Snow talk 12:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that "Bolin (愽林, in in-universe orthography)" is even kludgier, because we distract the reader from what interests them (what's the name of this main character?) with a very tangential aside that is of interest, if at all, only to the most devoted of fans. That's doing readers a disservice, and it's not even accurate: it's a matter of the writing system, not the orthography. I'll try to integrate a short prose explanation in the style section. Sandstein 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to make for horrible prose. Simply putting "Bolin (愽林, in in-universe orthography)" would probably make it clear that those are the characters used within the universe to denote the character's name. It isn't very notable to go into detail either way, but making a short note of it probably works. I'll try to add this to Bolin's article right away and see how it looks. ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- As to how to include them (if at all) do so by explicitly detailing the role they play ("Although the series is set in a fictional world and uses English for its dialogue, it utilizes Chinese characters in lieu of English orthography." Then associate the appropriate characters. I agree, it doesn't make for terribly smooth prose, but if it's going to be included, that's really the only way -- by being clear as to the mish-mash roles of language and orthography in the series. Snow talk 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I feel the same way about the way it was implemented. These Chinese names might have a place in the characters' own articles instead, though, but I have no idea how to implement them. They seem somewhat trivial anyway - I like including them someway, but they definitely don't deserve a place in the lead. ~Mable (chat) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed them because they are out of place in this context. These Chinese characters are how the names are represented in-universe visually (in a very few places), but that is not conveyed by simply putting them in parentheses after the character (original) names. Doing so is just confusing to readers - why is there Chinese / why are there odd squiggles in this article? Is this a Chinese series? Is Korra a Chinese woman? That's another example of sloppy encyclopedic writing that fails to take into account that we write about these characters as parts of a fictional work, not as persons who have a biography. In this context, if we use these transcriptions, we must explain what they mean, and that needs actual prose and sourcing, not just a parenthesis. Sandstein 17:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Done. Now, if we have a source somewhere that tells us what variety of the Chinese language is used for longer texts (Mandarin?) and how these characters would be pronounced in it, that would be a helpful addition. Sandstein 11:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That looks balanced to me. I'd much rather have a brief mention of the practice here with a few examples than have it popping up all over the place -- that strikes me as a bit fancrufty. This is more encyclopedic in tone. One knitpick though -- let's replace "flair" with something, also for encyclopedic tone? "Aesthetic" is the word for the context, I think, though "motif" or even "feel" would serve well enough. Snow talk 12:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Weight issue in lead
Apologies if I am stepping on anyone's toes here if it was added by someone present, but I'm concerned by the presence of the statement "The series has been a critical and commercial success, drawing favorable comparisons with the HBO series Game of Thrones and the work of Hayao Miyazaki" (both comparisons supported by this ref) in the lead (and as the second sentence no less). Only one source is making these comparisons, so it seems a little WP:UNDUE in terms of the prominence it takes in the article. I'd like to recommend that it be moved to the "writing and themes" subsection of Critical response. Snow talk 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, it seems too specific - it probably shouldn't be brought up in the lead. ~Mable (chat) 14:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's already there. The point of this comparison being made by only one source is a fair one. I think I originally added that to the lead because it is consonant with the degree of praise used by other commentators, as can be seen in the "critical reception" section, and so conveys a sense of the really rather unusual degree of esteem this animated series has been held in. Sandstein 14:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem reflecting the level of esteem the series has garnered (that's why we routinely do allow statements qualifying the degree of success or favorable critical response in the lead, after-all), but that's a highly specific and subjective couple of thematic claims. I have to think there's a less POV way to reflect the high regard the series has received. In fact, I'd say the third sentence ("It has been praised by reviewers for its production values and for addressing sociopolitical issues such as social unrest and terrorism, as well as for going beyond the established boundaries of youth entertainment with respect to issues of race, gender and sexual identity.") does that much more capably. I just feel that for any comparison to another major work to be located in the lead, it ought to be supported by multiple sources (surely at least two) to be truly consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise we are just picking and choosing the one that conforms most to our own impressions as an accurate comparison, and if we pick one that happens to be particularly positive or negative in association (or anywhere in the spectrum really), that's a little non-neutral for my taste. Snow talk 14:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's already there. The point of this comparison being made by only one source is a fair one. I think I originally added that to the lead because it is consonant with the degree of praise used by other commentators, as can be seen in the "critical reception" section, and so conveys a sense of the really rather unusual degree of esteem this animated series has been held in. Sandstein 14:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Adamstom.97, ChamithN, to (hopefully) quickly clear up a matter, the lead section should summarize content found elsewhere in the article, but including citations in the lead is not prohibited, especially when there might be some ambiguity or it might be worth dropping some extra science about a fact. I recently re-learned this guideline just before I made this edit, so we're all still learning here. The guideline is WP:LEADCITE. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Cyphoid, I think we've pretty much sorted it. I was wrongfully assuming that the information was already on the page, so a ref in the lead would have been unnecessary. I'm happy for the ref to stay there, unless the information is added to the article, of course. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Thanks Cyphoidbomb. That's exactly what I thought. No guideline prohibits from using refs in the lead, it only says "presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". I had to ask Adamstom.97 because he removed my ref addition under rationale "refs go in the actual article, not the lead". If Adamstom.97 believes it's the best thing to do, I've got no problem. But I'd much appreciate it if he could just move it to the actual article himself rather than removing the whole thing. And I agree with you Cyphoidbomb, we are all still learning and we all do make mistakes. Best --Chamith (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like we're all good then. Glad everything worked out friendly-like. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Legend of Korra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815121141/http://nueva.bsospirit.com/index.php/premios/goldspirit-xiii-edicion to http://nueva.bsospirit.com/index.php/premios/goldspirit-xiii-edicion
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Why no Nielsens for Book 4?
Hi All,
Why isn't there any Nielsen ratings for Book 4? Also, is there a way to get Nick to tell us what the viewership was/is since the end of the series? If so, this could be added to the graphic! (I am just getting to Book 4 now, but don't want to pay the $30 that Amazon Prime wants for it...at least yet!
Thanks! AmbidexterNH (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty sure that is because they stopped airing it on TV. It was moved exclusively to online as I recall. Derekloffin (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)