Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 2

RfC: Do we currently need a separate list of episodes for The Legend of Korra?
Wikipedia coverage of TV series is customarily organized into a main article about the series, separate articles about the seasons (if notable; see the RfC above for a discussion about this), separate articles about the episodes (if notable) and a list of all episodes from all seasons. For an example, see The Sopranos, The Sopranos (season 4) and List of The Sopranos episodes, respectively, and compare WP:MOSTV which describes how to set up such articles.

The Legend of Korra is a TV series whose first season, The Legend of Korra (Book 1), aired in April-June 2012 with 12 episodes; these episodes are listed in The Legend of Korra (Book 1). A second season, The Legend of Korra (Book 2) is in production and expected to air sometime in 2013; it will have 14 episodes but nothing else is currently known about them.

The question is, do we currently need the separate List of The Legend of Korra episodes, or is it appropriate to redirect it to The Legend of Korra (Book 1) until such time as there is enough information for writing a list of the second season's episodes? This has been the topic of discussion at Talk:List of The Legend of Korra episodes, and there have been several reverts.  Sandstein  07:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Redirect for now. The current content of List of The Legend of Korra episodes is entirely duplicative of content in other articles, to wit: the episode list in The Legend of Korra (Book 1), and broadcast and production information that does not belong into an episode list and has already been copied to the articles for which it is appropriate, i.e., the main article and/or the season articles. There is no point in maintaining duplicated content; it only complicates maintenance. Users who click on the List of The Legend of Korra episodes link will be directly redirected to the episode list in the season article. To be clear, I'm fully in favor of restoring the episode list as soon as we have enough information for a table of episodes in The Legend of Korra (Book 2). – Of course, this assumes that the result of the preceding RfC is to keep at least a separate article for book 1. If that is not the case, then evidently we need to restore the episode list.  Sandstein   07:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with Sanstein on this one. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not redirect As I indicated at Talk:List of The Legend of Korra episodes, the lead of List of The Legend of Korra episodes contains overview information that isn't in The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and which is useful to readers (I've never watched the show but I now know a little bit about it because of what I've read in the lead). The same is true for the series overview and episode list sections, which contain information about seasons 1 & 2. Clearly there is opposition to the redirection as several editors have now reverted the redirection. I think it would be better just to leave it as per most other shows to avoid what are bound to be ongoing problems. Despite any consensus here, redirecting the article is going to be reverted numerous times. I'm basing this on my unfortunate experiences at other shows of this type. I also think that, as this discussion concerns the episode list article and not this one, this discussion would have been better held there. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a link on that article's talk page to this RfC. Which useful content, specifically, is there that has not already been copied to the main article or to the book 1 or 2 article? If we were to move this useful information to these other articles (which is where it should be anyway - an episode list should not contain much information beyond the list of episodes), would that address your concern?   Sandstein   07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, as the RfC is about that article, that's really where the RfC should have occurred. However, it's not worth worrying about now. The content I was referring to is pretty much everything that's in the lead. The Legend of Korra (Book 1) concentrates on content related to that series as it should. It's really pointless extra work to move the content from the episode lits to the Book 1 article, only to have to move it back later on. As I indicated, the episode list also includes the series overview table, which links all books, as well as Book 2 specific content. Neither of these belong in the Book 1 article and it's also pointless extra work to move that content from the episode list to the Book 1 article, only to have to move it back later on. It would actually make far more sense to merge the Book 1 content back into the episode list and split it out when the article becomes too bulky, as specified in WP:SIZERULE. Based on the current state of the book 1 article, that would be about the time of book 6. Despite assertions to the contrary, there's nothing wrong with including content additional to the bare episode lists in the list article. That said, I really don't see an issue with retaining the articles in their present state. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not redirect As Aussie mentioned above we do not need to redirect. The reason the information is duplicated is because the (Book 1) page was created prematurely. We don't really need separate pages for each book (or season) yet. The reason you want to redirect it to (Book 1) is because the page is there but we don't need it at this time. We need a List of episodes page. To be honest the page should look like this. - Alec (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, in the RfC above, all contributors agree that we should at least keep The Legend of Korra (Book 1), and nobody has nominated that article for deletion. Your argument however is based on the premise that we should not have The Legend of Korra (Book 1). Assuming that article remains, which appears very likely based on the RfC above, do you still believe we should keep a separate episode list with the same content?  Sandstein   07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the article is most likely staying as is, I do still believe we should keep a separate episode list with the same content. That's how we always do it and it doens't matter if the information is duplicated. It will be duplicated when Book 2 airs and when Book 3 airs. Sure only the episode lists will be duplicated but we need a "list of episodes" page regardless if only one book has aired. We do not need to redirect it. I could say the same thing about (Book 1) mostly everything in that page is just duplicated on the main page anyway (where the exact same info is listed and even linked from (book 1) to the main page). We might as will just keep it (the list of episodes page) the way it is and just leave it at that. - Alec (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not redirect The article List of The Legend of Korra episodes should cover all of the series episodes and individual seasons (books) like The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and The Legend of Korra (Book 2) should cover only the episodes for their book. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, but... until 2013, all the episodes that exist are those of book 1. Why do you think it makes sense to include the identical episode list in List of The Legend of Korra episodes and The Legend of Korra (Book 1)? In other words, what is the added value in keeping the first article as a functional duplicate of the second?   Sandstein   07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why The Legend of Korra (Book 1) is premature. We wouldn't be running into this problem if the page doesn't exsit (at least not until Book 2 has aired). It makes sense because that's what the list of episodes page is for. We should just eliminate (or redirect) The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and keep the episode list on the List of Episodes page and move production info to the main article until we actually NEED to split into different pages. Then the problem of "duplication" is fixed. Since we do not even know any episodes for Book 2, I don't see why we need separate pages this early on? - Alec (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion whether or not to keep the book article should take place in the RfC above, not here. Because that RfC indicates that we will keep the book 1 article, we need to discuss the episode list based on that assumption.  Sandstein   08:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I cannot talk about deleting (Book 1) as the RfC discussion is about Book 2 and not Book 1. Unless you want me to open a new discussion to delete both books and just have the episodes listed on the List of Episodes page and not create separate (Book 1) and (Book 2) articles until both have finished airing and we have Book 3 info. - 50.36.95.22 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, please read again. The RfC above discusses four options of organizing the topic, and one option (no. 1) is what you propose, i.e., to omit both book articles and keep only the main article. If consensus in the above RfC is to choose this option, then I have no problem with keeping the episode list. But so far consensus is clearly to choose another option that keeps the book 1 article. This is why we need to address the problem of duplicating content in the book 1 article and in the episode list.  Sandstein   17:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect until media coverage of book 2 appears. It's duplicating the main article and the book one article at the moment, which doesn't seem to be a very logical way of doing things. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It will eventually be useful, when book 2 comes out.  There is no need for duplicate effort.
 * This is not a deletion discussion. Of course we want to keep the list. The question is whether we want to WP:REDIRECT it to the episode list in the book 1 article until book 2 comes out. Because until then the duplicate effort will be maintaining two lists instead of one.  Sandstein   13:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC the fourth: Merge the unnecessary characters article
So this article has been split yet again into List of The Legend of Korra characters. This list is entirely unnecessary as the important out-of-universe information can fit perfectly fine in this article. It's a matter of trimming unnecessary detail rather than dumping the info into another article and the summarizing it here. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, The Legend of Korra has been green-lighted a full series with 4 seasons, and the character list is just going to grow exponentially. The page is an investment in a task which will probably need to be done in the near future, so it should be let in its place. Avatar: The Last Airbender has its own list, and I believe The Legend of Korra should as well. Grammarxxx talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's entirely speculation. It's very possible (and arguably likely due to the lack of filler episodes) that the show will remain restricted to its primary characters and maybe a few extras. Regardless, the point is that right now there are very few characters who have out of universe context that need to be discussed in detail. Most of the contents of List of The Legend of Korra characters is either a) plot summary, which is redundant and belongs in the Series overview section, b) unnecessary details for minor characters, which can be removed, and c) mergeable information. In fact, the current Cast and characters section in the main article only needs a little expansion to include the characters article. I don't see the reason to keep a separate article with unnecessary information rather than condensing it into one place for readers to find. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This was highlighted on the TV wikiproject. We are not hear to be a fan wiki. A list of main characters for a show is appropriate in discussing the show, but should be within context of the show's article, and only separated out when there are SIZE problems per Summary Style.  That's not the case here.  Just because it has 4 seasons doesn't mean it has enough third-party/secondary references to back up a full character list. --M ASEM  (t) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal to merge this back. The main characters can be briefly covered in the main article, possibly in combination with the plot summary, and the supporting characters in the respective season/book articles, which have still plenty of space.  Sandstein   21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Merge I knew someone was going to do this, I do not see the need of a seperate page at this time as the info sat fine in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Light2Shadow (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate of why?--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've undone Parent5446's closure of this RfC as "merge". While I agree with the outcome, on general principles, discussions should be closed by persons who have not participated in them. This will make the result more convincing. I recommend asking an uninvolved third party to close this discussion.  Sandstein   06:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We can post this to WP:AN to request closure if necessary. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This was never merged!!! Just deleted! Ob tund Talk 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was merged, see the link to the diff at the top of this talk page. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No it was not all that happen was that the page was redirected. Ob tund Talk 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right here: . You'll notice quite a bit of the prose is directly copied from the other article. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now it is good! Ob tund Talk 02:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC the third: How do we refer to the books in prose?
OK, this is not a formal RfC as it is not likely to interest people who have not already commented in the above two. How do we refer to the books in prose? E.g., do we say "Book One aired..." or "Book 1: Air aired..."? BOOK ONE AIR CHAPTER FOUR THE VOICE IN THE NIGHT
 * Sources:
 * The title card before each episode, e.g.:
 * Others?
 * Applicable rules:
 * Naming conventions (television), which is for article titles, says: "the article should be named first by the name of the show, and then by the season number, such as "24 (season 1)"". This would give something like "The Legend of Korra (Book 1)", which is too unwieldy for prose text.
 * MOS:ITALIC says that we italicize "television and radio series and serials (individual episodes should appear in quotes)", but nothing about season titles.
 * Others?
 * Options:
 * Book 1: Air / Book 1: Air
 * Book 1
 * Book One: Air / Book One: Air / Book One: Air
 * Book One / Book One
 * Air / Air
 * Others?
 * Comparable situations:
 * The predecessor series Avatar: The Last Airbender does not have this problem because its "books" are congruous with the network's seasons. Therefore Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) can refer to its topic in prose as "the first season". This isn't possible here because it would confuse readers: Nickelodeon considers two books to constitute a season (see the first of the two RfCs above).
 * Others?

Discussion
As the manual of style provides no clear guidance, I propose we settle on "Book One: Air for the first mention in an article or section, and just Book One for subsequent mentions. This is because of the following considerations: Unlike "season", "Book" is not a term of art in television, but the creators' invention. As such, it is part of the formal title of the (half-)season, which is according to the title card: "Book One: Air". As such, the "One" should be wrtitten out as it appears in the title card (to contrast with "season 1"; the seasons have no titles but only numbers), and the entire title should be italicized, because a book of this series is essentially a Serial (radio and television) - a "story arc[...] that span[s] entire television seasons [...], which distinguishes [it] from traditional episodic television that relies on more stand-alone episodes." And according to MOS:ITALIC, serial titles should be italicized.  Sandstein  07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could live with this. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the reliable sources state, we should have it split into 2 seasons with 2 books in each. Season 1 - Book One: Air and Season 1 - Book Two: Spirits. Then Season 2 - Book Three: TBA and Season 2 - Book Four: TBA. Networks can call their seasons and episodes as they wish. If you look at the TV show GREEK, the show is split into four season and 6 chapters. We cannot just use the format like the original series as the format for This series is a different show and still connected but the show does not need to be laid out like the first series. - Alec (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't need a "No. in book" section along with "No. in series" and "No. in season" for each book? As for the book names, we shouldn't italicize them. We already have Avatar: The Last Airbender to use as model so we should construct The Legend of Korra the same way. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, what you two are discussing seems to be the structure of articles and sections, which has nothing to do with the question posed here: how do we call the books in the text of the article when we need to refer to them?  Sandstein   07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated above (and you) the first occurance we refer to it as Book One: Air then in the same article just state Book One. Kind of like when we Abbreviate words when we type we say something like To Be Announced (TBA) and use TBA the rest of the article. - Alec (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, then we agree on this, thanks!  Sandstein   07:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say is that we should follow how Avatar: The Last Airbender refer to its books. We can't call it just Book One because there is another Book One. (Everybody stills remembers Book One: Water right?) Light2Shadow (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but I know I'm looking at "The Legend of Korra" Wikipedia page and I know Book One is Book One of the Korra series. We would mention "Book One: Air" in the first instance we use it but later on in the article, we would just mention "Book One" as we know we're talking about Book One: Air. - Alec (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seasons (or in ATLA/TLOK's case, "books") should not be italicize. Light2Shadow (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason for why that should be so? As I explained above, these books are in effect serials, which means that the manual of style asks for italics.  Sandstein   07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seasons are not italicize. The "books" are not literal books. They are what the creators of ATLA/TLOK call their seasons. Light2Shadow (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOK is different from ATLA. Each book is not considered an actual season. Rather two books compose one season. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In Avatar: The Last Airbender, each book takes up a season. In The Legend of Korra, each book takes up a half-season. The "books" are not actual books that need to be italicize. They are what the creaters call their seasons (or half-seasons). Light2Shadow (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: How do we organize the content related to the individual books of The Legend of Korra?
This request for comment and the subsequent one is an attempt to find consensus about a range of questions related to the continued development of the articles about this series.

Where do we put information about production, casting, reception, ratings, broadcast dates and so forth? As of now, we have the main article, The Legend of Korra, as well as The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and The Legend of Korra (Book 2) (on AfD). Assuming that the AfD does not end with deletion, what do we put where? I see roughly the following options: Please list your preferences below and comment on the merits of the individual options in the subsections below.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep everything in the main article, forego creating separate book/season articles for now. The argument for this is that most media coverage we have is about book 1, and media coverage of book 2 is mostly about one recent SDCC panel discussion.
 * 2) Create a separate article for book 1, but not yet for book 2, keeping book 2 content in the main article because there's relatively little coverage of it for now.
 * 3) Create a separate article for season 1 (books 1 and 2). This has been proposed in the AfD, with the argument that Nickelodeon considers the two books to be one season, and that we should follow the example of other TV series articles that organize their content by season.
 * 4) Keep the separate articles for book 1 and 2. This allows us to apply summary style by summarizing the important information in the main article and relegating detailed coverage to the subarticles.

Preferences
I recommend that you list your preferences in descending order, to allow a quick assessment of the discussion's outcome.
 * Prefer 4, second choice 2, third choice 1, disagree with 3, per my discussion of the four options below.  Sandstein   06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC) (Swapped preference of 2 and 1, 07:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Prefer 4, second choice 2, disagree with 1 and 3 Considering the creator of the series considers the Books separate story lines unto themselves, I think we should follow his lead. - Presidentman talk · contribsRandom Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2, second choice 4, disagree with 1 and 3 — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2, second choice 4, disagree with 1 and 3 I second Parent5446's decision. There isn't enough info on book 2 to make a separate page yet. Oldag07 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer 4, second choice 2, disagree with 1 and 3 Each book needs its own article and not a combined article. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2, second choice 1, disagree with 3 and 4 At least for now. Book 2 isn't slated to actually air until a year from now, and there really isn't going to be enough information until then that would require a separate article.  Once this date gets a lot closer and reliable info starts pouring in, then it would certainly be appropriate to split it off into its own article, but its too soon at the moment.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer 4, second choice 2, disagree with 1 and 3 See my comment below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer 4, second choice 2, third choice 1, disagree with 3, pretty much per Sandstein. The book 2 article is a little bit WP:CRYSTAL-ly at the moment, but there is enough information in it that I am fine with keeping it, and it will be very useful indeed to have this structure in place when the inevitable flood of media coverage begins. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Discussion of the four options (or more, if any other are proposed) goes here.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 1 (only main article)
I could live with this, but as a practical matter, we will need separate book or season articles at some point because they will all get media coverage as they air. And as more material accumulates (and bloats the main article), splitting it up into subarticles will just become harder and harder. And then we have to have the whole discussion about when to spin off subarticles again. That's why I think option 4 is preferable.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this option isn't too lucrative. I'd rather keep the plot summary where it belongs in the season articles. There is plenty of information to fill the Book 1 article as has been demonstrated. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 2 (main article + book 1 article)
This is also doable, but in the course of the next half year coverage of book 2 will accumulate and will be added (more or less haphazardly, probably) to the main article. It will be difficult to apply summary style (or really any reader-friendly structure) to the main article when we have a summary of the important information about the series as a whole next to relatively detailed production information about book 2. Having a separate article for this also de-clutters the watchlist of those who watch the related articles. And not creating a book 2 article now only postpones the question of when to do it.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I say when the first trailer comes out. Oldag07 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 3 (combine book 1+2 into one season article)
This was proposed in the AfD, but for the reasons given there, I think it is inappropriate: For all practical purposes, and as explained by a creator of the series, the books are the seasons of this series: they tell separate stories and are produced and aired (and covered by the media) as much as a year apart. Nickelodeon's "season" designation appears to be a purely internal and administrative matter. Combining two books into one article makes as much sense as combining two random seasons of another series into one article.  Sandstein  06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Option 4 (separate articles for book 1 and 2)
This is my preferred option because it allows for organical summary-style development of the main article and subarticles: important stuff goes into the main article, details into the subarticles. (We will still need to discuss separately how much of the book 1 content such as plot summary or production info we want to move into the subarticle.)  Sandstein   06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The articles both have good references to them, a merge is just going to make things more confusing later down the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in relation to option 2. Book two isn't coming out until Summer 2013. Most of the new stuff on the page while sourced, but it is still borderline WP:CRYSTAL. Oldag07 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Each book needs its own article and not a combined article. Light2Shadow (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: If each book has an article, what would become of The Legend of Korra (season 1) (the page)? I'm thinking about something like Kill Bill; it could be short and point to Book 1 and Book 2, briefly explaining the division. Cliff Smith 18:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would compare it to Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1), while the first book of the first series did have 8 more episodes it is rated as a FA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Presentation of characters
Okay, since there seems to be a bit of an edit war going on over this, opening this discussion for it. Right now there is no dedicated LOK character page, and the section currently is presented in a condensed form with a few paragraph, no specific break out of the characters like you see in the ATLA page. Personally I'm not for every tom dick and harry getting a character break out, but I am for the main characters (those with the picture above) getting a break out. That's just my preference, not strong enough though for me to do through any changing myself for it.

On a side note about said pictures, I think they're just asking for trouble. VA pics should be on the VA pages, and character pics should be much more limited (a group pic would be great). Again, not motivated enough personally to make any change there, but I know the Wikipedia community is rather nasty in this regard. Derekloffin (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To respond to the first point, the reason it's in summary style instead of a list is because 1) the summarized form is more out-of-universe than the original list of characters (although if someone were to write a proper characters list that'd be fine) and 2) lists really don't look as good as summaries, unless you're really crafty and do something like they have in the Firefly article. In the end, most of this is just my personal opinion.


 * For the pictures, I agree. Luckily, the actors' pictures are free, so we don't have any restrictions on using those. But the characters' pictures are all non-free. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah as neat as that looks. That is going to lay some concerns on the good article nomination due to fair use guidelines. If you could merge all those together in one image that might be constructive but I don't think there is supposed to ever be that many fair use image on a article without reliable commentary on the subject. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be no objection, for the purpose of the GAN and fair use guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and remove the character pictures. If somebody can find a single image with all the characters that we want to add in, we can then do so once it is found. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking over fair use, I don't see why you couldn't use them, you are displaying the characters. Ob tund Talk 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless somebody is going to recreate the List of The Legend of Korra characters page, there should be a characcters list in the characters section instead of the paragraphs. That's the way it was before the characters page was created. Light2Shadow (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really its up to you, I have to review the article, i wont review the cast and characters scetion until this is figured out. Ob tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 18:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I recreated the characters page and somebody reverted my edits. I readded the characters list to the characters section and did some fixing as well and somebody reverted my edits. I can fix the pages but people keep on reverting my edits. Maybe if somebody else did them, the edits wouldn't get revert. Light2Shadow (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only thing I want is for the list to be restricted to the main characters. The last version has numerous minor characters and even one character we haven't even seen yet.  It ends up turning into a tom-dick-and-harry list when so many are included.  Basically it should be the team avatar, Tenzin, Lin, Amon and his brother (at least for now, we're likely to see expanded roles in the coming books). Derekloffin (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like the characters section on Avatar: The Last Airbender. I would like the characters section on The Legend of Korra to be like that also but what about the other characters? This is why the characters page should be created since there are many characters now. Light2Shadow (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a need to worry about them right now. It's not like we have some rule that says 'Minor characters must be included.'  Some of them we can drop in some mention of, like Tenzin's family in his blurb, but beyond that it seems rather pointless to include them.  We're very early in LOK's run so a broader specific character page isn't out the question in the future once there is some more content to justify its existence (which it lacks currently and is the reason it didn't stand up). If and when that occurs then you get some more flexibility to add them in.  Here it just acts as clutter.
 * Anyway, that's my thought on the matter. I'd actually would like to hear some words from the other editors too.  I can concede a broader list as I'm not that strong for a limited list.  They seem to have other issues. Derekloffin (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor characters could be presented in the articles about the respective book. As to the images, I think that there is a reasonable fair use case for including the character images.  Sandstein   09:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The primary reason I dislike the list format for the characters section is because it encourages unnecessary in-universe information. When you have a list of information, it's easy and sensible to include little "additions". For example, adding a brief trivia fact onto the end of one character's description. However, when in paragraph form, like it is now, it's a lot harder for stuff like that to happen since the prose needs to be condensed. In other words, due to the necessity of sentence flow in paragraph form, extraneous information is less likely to be added. Furthermore, there is no actual reason to have the characters in list form, other than the precedent that the ATLA article has it. The current characters section is just fine in that it tells the readers about the characters in a concise manner. (As for the characters pictures, I am ambivalent, so long as we can make a good fair use case.) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs also have in-universe information. You can't eliminate all in-universe information. The list can have have both in-universe and out-universe information. Light2Shadow (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with paragraphs, the likeliness of extraneous info to be added is less, primarily because when copyediting a paragraph, editors tend to lean more toward trimming than they do in lists. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am really late to this conversation, but I still believe that the characters page should have been temporarily merged into the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. Once book two or three were complete, we could have spun off the characters page. We still have a lot of characters on this page don't necessarily belong on the main page which is merely supposed to be a summary of all LOK information. Oldag07 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception
The previous paragraph on the reception to series 1 was clearly written by someone who hated the series finale and particularly Mako because it was quote mining positive reviews to try and conflate them into negative reviews, misrepresented several of its reviews, linked at least one article that did not actually support the statement it was linked from, and in the case of the link to the FemPop article about Mako, did not actually link a critical source but instead linked a hit piece on a character that contained multiple factual errors about the show. I rewrote the paragraph to address these issues, though I concede it may be too wordy now. It also probably needs far more sources to support critical concensus, because it's only linking a handful of them despite how high-profile the show was. Rebochan (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote it, and I quite liked the finale, but per WP:NPOV we can't overlook that a significant proportion of commentators apparently didn't appreciate certain elements of the writing. I've undone your changes because, as you say, they are quite wordy in that they don't convey much and also gloss over the substantive criticism linked to in these sources. We can, on the other hand, expand on the (overall and predominantly) positive reception the series received, if you can find additional sources for that.  Sandstein   06:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted it without even addressing the problems with it? I expanded the references because as written, the paragraph is making statements that are not being backed up by references, and in at least one case, is not actually a critical review but is presented as though it is.  For that matter, if you look at other articles with critical reception sections, all critical statements are attributed as quotes directly to the reviewer.  Simply saying "critics didn't like the pacing" is not WP:NPOV because you cannot prove that all critics felt that way.  You can say that "Raz Greenburg of Strange Horizons criticized the show's pacing".  IGN wrote a mostly positive review, but included a single sentence addressing the pacing.  It is being used to back up a statement that is actually from Kirk Hamilton of Kotaku.  I'd also point out the Kotaku piece isn't a "review" either, it was a list of problems the writer had with the finale.  He was not presenting it as critical analysis, so I question it's relevance to an actual critical reception section, but if it must be included, Hamilton's own criticisms should be correctly attributed (they were also far deeper than IGN, who wrote a largely positive review).  Finally, I took out the FemPop article entirely because nothing in it was even being quoted - the reference to Mako seemed to only address IGN's concerns about him being flat compared to the other characters, while the FemPop article was one staff member's rant that made multiple factual errors about the show and accused him of making Korra too weak a character.  It wasn't a review, so grouping it with "critical consensus" is disengenuous. If we must keep it despite my questioning it's relevance as a wiki source, the actual criticisms raised in the piece need to be attributed to the author of the piece, not to "the fans" because "the fans" is not an entity that Wikipedia concerns itself with. Rebochan (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to signal that the phrase: "Tarrlok's murder–suicide of Amon" is spoiler. Shouldn't it be signaled at the beginning of the chapter? Sorry if my comment is somehow not in accord with wikipedia's policy or form. I just wanted to signal this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.127.92 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is inherently a spoiler site, and doesn't put in spoiler warning as such. You can look at Spoiler for the guideline. Derekloffin (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Pro-bending
Pro bending is barely talked about. I recommend making a subsection about it briefly or maybe even an article. <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 05:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only problem is what would we say about it? Describing the rules about how it's played would be in-universe and unnecessary, and outside the context of the show it doesn't have much notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 23:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, that is why we have Avatar wiki for those things. <em style="font-family:Courier;color:green">Ob <em style="font-family:Courier;color:#009ACD">tund <em style="font-family:Courier">Talk 01:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Science, meet bending. Or don't.
There's no cited reference to bending operating solely by – or at all – telekinetic means. In the article's presentation, telekinesis is not only used as an explanation for the reader but strongly emphasized. The Legend of Korra, just as The Last Airbender, focuses on themes of spirituality, mindfulness and awareness of the living world and it's connections to both its (albeit fictional) spirits and earthly creatures. The term "telekinesis" never appears to my knowledge – even the word "magic" is cast aside in the opening dialogues of The Last Airbender. I won't bluntly remove it due to personal opinions here, but surely someone else is willing to discuss this misguiding inaccuracy's place in an introducing segment of an article, citing no source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.175.4 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the term either. It lends an explanation to the power that we simply don't know.  We know for instance that physical movement is generally required for bending to work, but telekinesis is supposed to be purely mental, but then again that physical movement restriction has been relaxed in a few instances in the show.  In any respect unless it is actually explained that way in the show, or by some analyst that can be cited, I would say it shouldn't be used. Derekloffin (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree and I removed it as it is unsoruced and not even true. The phrasing as it is after the change is somewhat awkard and could be reworked. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put it back. means, simply, moving stuff by the force of mind. That's pretty much consistent with what's shown on screen, and doesn't imply any particular explanation for how or why it works. More importantly, it's a concise and evocative description that allows readers who haven't seen the series to quickly understand what "bending" means, without us needing to devote a paragraph to describe it in other words.   Sandstein   22:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The telekinesis explanation is by force of mind alone (otherwise all movement of objects by human control would be considered telekinesis which clearly is not the case), but this doesn't match that.  Technique is required.  Again, unless someone we can cite calls to telekinesis it is essentially OR.  It is lending an explanation which while possible isn't established. Derekloffin (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not true. Watch the show and see that bending isn't through force of mind. But more importantly for wikipedia standards, find a source describing it as telekenisis. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about latest revert I did, didn't realize I was changing back more than just removing 'telekenetic'. -05:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ratings
This article claims that The Legend of Korra received the highest ratings for an animated show in 2012, but its ratings of 4.3 million viewers per episode is well below The Simpsons or Family Guy. The cited article lists no citation of its own and I can't find data to determine exactly what the article means. Perhaps it is the highest rated animated show on cable, perhaps it is the highest rated animated show on Nickelodeon. I don't know, but as is, the citation is inaccurate. 76.28.213.69 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Finding ratings online seems to be a chore, so do you have a reference to the Simpsons or Family Guy's 2012 ratings? I suspect given the context it means the highest rated of new shows, but like you say it doesn't give us that for sure. Derekloffin (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we use this blog as a source?
I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I found a pretty neat Legend of Korra blog that has a lot of information on the series. The blog is titled Avatar: The Legend of Korra - News & Updates. You can check out the link, but I've done some research on the blog and it seems to be very popular and very credible.

I've been meaning to make some edits on this page, but I just wanted to make sure I get the go-ahead from all the editors to use this blog as a source. Please leave your response in your convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash1478 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting and well-written blog, to be sure, but per WP:SPS we shouldn't use it as a source. The policy provides that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but I see no indications that this is the case here.  Sandstein   22:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

season 2 premiere date
Should the premiere date be written as '2013-14'?

Even in the citation itself it is stated purely as speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.180.201 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The source indicates that Nickelodeon announced the series as returning in their "2013-14 season"; that's not speculation.  Sandstein   22:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Steampunk? But it's not
Throughout the article, Legend of Korra is referred to as Steampunk, however the design aesthetics and technology represented is completely Dieselpunk. For comparisons sake, Steampunk represents design and futuristic technology that calls back to the steam age and industrial revolution, whereas Dieselpunk is largely reminescent of the art deco period and inter-war years. Anyone still think this is Steampunk?General kaiden (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made the changes within the article (not including a quotation from reviewer), If this is contested, let's get a discussion going. General kaiden (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In principle, I agree that the setting is more dieselpunk than steampunk, but! Our own opinion does not matter (see WP:NOR). Only what reliable sources write does. And to the extent sources describe the setting, they use the word steampunk rather than dieselpunk, see e.g. Wired and Wired again.  Sandstein   17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"2013–14 season"
This start date for book 2 has been repeatedly removed, most recently because "changed it to TBN do to the fact its not an actually date. Do not change tell 100% date is confirmed by nick." I don't quite understand this. The source refers to the official Nickelodeon press release which says "For the 2013-14 season, the network will also roll out new episodes of returning hit animated series, including season two (sic) of The Legend of Korra". Given that's the most recent reliable information we have concerning the start date, why not mention it here? I've invited the IP editor who removed it to comment.  Sandstein  06:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Book 2 and season 2
This article currently distinguishes between book 2 and season 2 in that it groups two books into a season. This is based on this blog post by Brian Konietzko: "What makes this even more confusing is that the network considers each block of 26 episodes a “season,” which is another reason we try to stick to calling these Korra arcs “books.” So for the network’s purposes, Books 1 & 2 are Season 1, and Books 3 & 4 are Season 2."

However, if this internal accounting convention at Nickelodeon exists, nobody else seems to follow it. Other published sources appear to treat "book" and "season" as synonymous (e.g., , and , which all talk of "season 2" to describe book 2;  "the first ‘book’ (season)"). That is understandable, given that the books match the common understanding of a TV series season as a set of episodes that are aired one after the other. Most significantly, perhaps, Nickelodeon itself equates books and seasons in its PR materials, e.g. in : "For the 2013-14 season, the network will also roll out new episodes of returning hit animated series, including season two of The Legend of Korra".

For these reasons, I suggest we follow the practice of published sources and abandon the distinction between books and season. I've adapted the "Series overview" section accordingly.  Sandstein  07:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely agree with this. Nickelodeon's press release is a more reliable source than a personal blog post of a show writer, and as you point out, the great weight of the evidence supports the notion that "Book 2" is, in fact, the same thing as "Season 2." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd suggest getting rid of the sentence discussing the possible "season" vs. "book" distinction in the series overview section, especially if the article just references the Books as "books" and doesn't use the "season" terminology. The existence of a distinction between the two terms is debatable at best anyway (the only official word from Nickelodeon does describe Book 2 as a season), and I see little value in including information about this possible terminological distinction in the article regardless; it really seems like a trivial point. I've made edits accordingly. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I put it in so as not to confuse those who may have heard of Korra consisting of two seasons, but we shall see.  Sandstein   04:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong about this, but bearing in mind WP:CRYSTAL, I have a strong feeling that when Book 2 finally does air, Nickelodeon will blast over the airwaves that "season 2" and "the new season" of The Legend of Korra has arrived, and confusion over this issue will definitively be put to rest. But as you say, we'll see. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Review Section Paragraph 2 Spoilers
I was reading this wiki page and I find it very informative. However I found it alarming that there is no spoiler warning in paragraph 2 of the Review section before revealing chapter finale information. I was lucky enough to have finished the season of the show before reading this, but others might not have.

I hope I'm bringing this up in the appropriate area.

ChazFreakShow (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are, but the content is appropriate. As a reference work, Wikipedia does not omit or label spoilers. See WP:Spoilers. We do however normally limit plot information to sections where one might expect to encounter it, such as, in this case, the "plot" or "critical reaction" sections.  Sandstein   16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Korra Soundtrack for Book 1: Air announced! :)
About the lack of a Korra soundtrack.......this has changed! Last night,I found this entry on the Best Buy page under "Korra" : http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Legend+Of+Korra%3A+Original+Music+From+Book+One+-+CD/21563275.p?id=2717954&skuId=21563275&st=Korra&lp=3&cp=1

The 1st soundtrack comes out on July 16th,2013. Please change the music section of this article to reflect this. Thanks in advance! :D Freespirit1981 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but we should wait for a reliable source to announce this before we modify the article.  Sandstein   22:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it appears on Amazon too, so I suppose we can make a cautious addition based on these primary sources.  Sandstein   10:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)