Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hoax

The two sentences about the first episode being released on 'KorraNation' are a hoax/false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.145.101 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing false or hoax about it. They were up, and if you look around you can probably still find them on 3rd party sites, although I won't mention any. Derekloffin (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The two episodes are currently available on the official show website, you can stream them completely legally. I would add this to the article but am not sure if it's appropriate. Elecmahm (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki

This article has been on the ATLA wiki for some time, so I thought I'd put it here too. CPO Pieman (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Flashbacks"?!

I just noticed the part where dongbufeng.net supposedly said there would be flashbacks. I'm Freespirit at dongbufeng's chat box, and although the site said that it would take place 100 years after the end of the original Avatar series, it wasn't stated that there would be flashbacks. The original characters (except for MAYBE Aang, should Korra be the next Avatar) probably won't be in this new series. Also, can we put that the name Korra is Greek for "maiden" and Aboriginal (Native Australian) for "grass"? Thanks in advance! :) Freespirit1981 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Reply: Hi, just in reference to your comment about saying the name Korra is "Aboriginal" for grass, there are numerous Aboroginal countries in Australia. It would be incorrect to reference Korra being Aboriginal for grass, as the several hundred Aboriginal clan groups had different dialects and even languages. You would need to locate the actual clan that the word "Korra" came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.239.140 (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode count

If we know the mini-series will be a twelve episode show, then we can put that in the infobox. Furthermore, if "(planned)" is added to the parameter, there will be no confusion that the show has not yet aired. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is to add the count to the infobox. Yes, its still not aired, but verifiable sources say (does it?) that it will be twelve episodes. Until we are sure that it is (or will be) changed, we should keep all available info. As far as I can say, Korra could be a male, since it is not yet aired ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And there are indeed verifiable sources that affirm the episode count. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To be neutral on this, I am waiting to hear Chaosmaster16's reasoning. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am frankly worried that some things are just rumors. Some times editors state in this article that this takes place 75 years but the source seems to only say 70 years. Am I missing something? And I can't seem to really find any source really saying twelve mini episodes except it being stated as a rumor in Comic Con. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is the source for twelve episodes. As for the 75 v. 70, you can either say 70 or 75. The source for 70 is a blog published by the Wall Street Journal, which is pretty reliable, while the 75 year source comes from a ToonZone interview with the casting director herself. Considering the WSJ source says seventy years just when it is summarizing the article, while Andrea Romano specifically says 75 years in her interview, I would go with 75, but the solution in the article now ("at least seventy years") is OK with me. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that source. And that does explain the 75 or 70 years thing. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what happens when a television series is still in production. It's not like I can just pick up the DVD set and check the episode count, or cite specific episodes as to what time period it takes place in. And I'm surprised that there is no guideline or policy that deals with future television series. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to the punch of replacing the original source to your source. Still if the episode count said planned and we had a source proving it, then I am not seeing any violations yet or crystal balling. But it has to say (plannned) otherwise it is. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the logic of adding (planned) if its already in the article. Its nothing new to the page, regardless if there is a source or not. ChaosMaster_Chat 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, with that logic there would be no point of the infobox at all. Adding "(planned)" tells the reader that the episode count is not official without them having read the actual article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it only planned to run for 12 episodes only or are 12 episodes confirmed to be aired but there might be more? (AtheistMetal (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

According to sources, it is only planned to run for 12 episodes. Whether they decide at a later time to put in more we have no idea, but as of now it's only 12. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 05:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the WallStreetJournal Speakeasy blog its now 26 episodes - "Nickelodeon had picked up “Korra” for 12 episodes but recently decided to order 14 more shows. “When we first starting talking to Nickelodeon about doing a new series in the ‘Avatar’ world, they asked if we could do shorter arcs—more like a show like ‘24’where there’s a specific villain or challenge for that particular season,” Konietzko says. “We’re really happy with that number. It allows us to focus much more closely on each episode and get a lot more craft into it.” http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/03/08/the-last-airbender-legend-of-korra-the-creators-speak/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.9 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

In the wikipedia-article it is clamed that the show will air in november 2011, though the reference/source just claims 2011, not november 2011. So I will remove it, unless there will be a new source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.107.250 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New release date: 2012?

According to this link, Korra will now come out in 2012: [[1]] . There's also a new picture of Korra that finally reveals her face. :) --Freespirit1981 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Move

On Avatar Wiki, they said that Bryan and Mike announced that the name of the series is being changed to The Last Airbender:Legend of Korra. As soon as we get clarification on this, we need to move this page.

Monster Rancher the Great (Play Monster Rancher!) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Monster Rancher the GreatMonster Rancher the Great (Play Monster Rancher!) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster Rancher the Great (talk • contribs)

It's not only on Avatar Wiki, it's in the WSJ article as well. Will perform move shortly. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that source included in the references section? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The name has been changed again, it is now simply "The Legend of Korra", http://bryankonietzko.tumblr.com/post/19269521479/ahhh-yeah-thats-more-like-it-much-better --213.112.240.148 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Korra's animal guide: a polar bear-dog

Korra's animal guide is a polar bear-dog: http://www.avatarspiritmedia.net/ . This picture, posted on July 21st,2011 proves it. Should we put this info in the article? Freespirit1981 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That link is broken. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Release date uncertainty (2013).

Just want to drop this in here as there has been a couple edits to this effect using a rather questionable source. However, these sources: http://www.darkhorse.com/Blog/565/officially-announcing-next-book-avatar-last-airben http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=2881 Are the ones being referred to by the blog. Not sure where (or even if since this is in dispute right now) this should be mentioned. The release date is mentioned in the opening and at the bottom of the 1st paragraph of the production. Remember though that the current air date is at the bottom of the paragraph, not the top (the top one is the original announced air date and should be left at Nov 2011). Derekloffin (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Name change...again?

As we know, the title of the series was changed to The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra during Comicon. However, the actual opening for the series has been leaked, and it clearly is entitled Avatar: Legend of Korra. Do we switch it again, or do we have to wait until it becomes official? --71.57.148.227 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering we don't know when exactly this particular leaked opening was made, I'd say we stick with the last official word for now. This could easily be something that was made a while ago before the change was decided, and just wasn't edited with the new title yet. Derekloffin (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

the creators of the show's request to not reposted the video and they removed the video because it's pirated and the staff of that uploaded the video said:

"I wanted to apologise for deleting the link to the leaked Korra opening video. Mike DiMartino has commented on a repost of the video. He asked that it not be reposted. Please, pass the message around, let’s respect his request.

It can be hard not to just jump with excitement and enthusiasm and spread the new Korra material around. Heck, I am guilty of that. I’m in this business and I should know better than to link to what basically is pirated material. Mea Culpa.

Let’s wait for the official release of news and materials."

DigiPen92 (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like we have a new official NICK promo with the Avatar name again, so unless Nick screwed up, guess it is officially back to Avatar. Should we be consider moving this back to Avatar: Legend of Korra, or wait till it is actually released to be extra sure? (the link to said nick promo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlkBZp5rleA, think it is okay to post this one) Derekloffin (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this confirms the name change completely. I think it's completely safe to change the title now (if that's possible)CombustionMan1 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Since we have an official source, we should change the article title to Avatar: The Legend of Korra now. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I contacted the user who uploaded that video, Kimiko126, and he claimed that he "got it from Nick's network though, so it may be for a toy-fair or for investors." So, it is not "official" unless someone can confirm that have seen the commercial broadcast on Nick channels or streamable from Nick sites. Nothing conclusive so far. What we do know is that, the official working title was "The Legend of Korra" (2010/07/21: Viacom WSJ-1) but was changed to "The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra" (2011/03/08: WSJ-2) and has been referred recently with its official short title "Legend of Korra" (MTV.BE DHC-1 DHC-2). FYI. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It says on the page as well as on Avatar Wiki that the series is officially called Avatar: The Legend of Korra now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10adamto (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem would be assuming that Wiki is anything like this one anyone could have typed in the new name. Unless there is a source provided on the Avatar Wiki and that source is reliable its of little use.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Episodes/Seasons

Whoever keeps adding the template for episodes and seasons please stop. We have no official word. And I don't even know where you got "Mako's Journey" from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.118.213 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No Source for "Avatar The Legend of Korra"

The video that was released is from an unknown source and an unknown time. It does not count as a reliable source in my book and one will need to be found to change the name of the show from what it is now. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of speculation going on in this article. I've just nominated List of Avatar: The Legend of Korra episodes for deletion as it's full of nothing. If there's no reliable source, don't put it in; and forums and gossip aren't reliable. GedUK  14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

New source found: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nickelodeon-latin-america-celebrates-15-years-in-the-region-with-a-screen-party-and-a-year-full-of-original-local-productions-137967738.html Opinions on whether this is a good enough source for the name change? -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This makes two sources now (including the promo I cited earlier - if you still think it's fake or somehow not legit, then you have to admit that it's a DAMN good fake). And PR firms whether they're domestic or international don't release things like this offhandedly; the whole reason Nick changed the show's name to The Last Airbender was to avoid copyright and trademark issues with James Cameron's franchise. Obviously they've decided to ignore it or they worked something else out. Back to the point: Nick wouldn't let a firm publish a big anniversary press release like this without making sure the names of the series involved were correct. I say change the name. (Contractor815 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

I don't think it's a fake: the problem is we don't know the date of it. The video could be a year old and before they changed it to "The Last Airbender". But yes, the press release is much more definitive if it's from Viacom which it looks like it is. Let's have some more opinions. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My slight issue with that source is that it's Latin American Viacom, which still leaves potential that it may be terrority dependant (as TMNT were called Hero Turtles in the UK), but I think that's pretty unlikely. I'm happy enough to go with it, and happy to do the move if it needs the mop applying to it. GedUK  12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the same reservation as Ged here, but also feel it is unlikely and am okay with a change to the name. Derekloffin (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the region issue needs to be explored here. Avatar: The Last Airbender was called Avatar: Legend of Aang in other countries. Who's to say that the same isn't true here and that the name will be different in the US, maybe because of copyright laws, maybe because of something else? Can we really use this source to say that the US title is 'Avatar: The Legend of Korra' when the source says it applies to Latin America and not necessarily the US? (I'm not trying to be contrarian here, I just want accurate information with accurate sources). -Dylan0513 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, at the very least though I think we can mention the other name in the lead and as an alternate title for now until some more sources pop up. Derekloffin (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good plan. And hopefully we get those more sources soon. -Dylan0513 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Instituted. Unless it should be in the actual opening paragraph too, which I have no problem with and someone can add. -Dylan0513 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the conversation. As I mentioned earlier, the user (Kimiko126) who uploaded the YouTube video told me he took it from Nick's private network. Also, someone from avatarspirit.net later pointed out a winx forum comment that claimed the video was a 2011 commercial for licensing companies, not for the public consumption. Since we are back to The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra, it seemed kind of moot but I thought it be worth mentioning. — Hasdi Bravo • 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If the conversation on this Reddit thread is to be believed (apparently he's an executive at Nick), Avatar: The Legend of Korra is just the international branding. So to my great regret, the title of the article should remain as is. (Contractor815 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

I don't put much trust in it myself, but I definitely agree that we can't change the title at this time. The information on the reversion back to the Avatar title is just too sketchy to be trusted either at this point. We'll probably have to wait till the first official episode plays in NA to be 100% sure, but looks like it is still Last Airbender. Of course, that means I'm going to be reverting some IP editor every 3rd day or so... sigh. Derekloffin (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not too surprised with this - Latin America press release uses A:TLoK, while the American-based Dark Horse Comics (working with Bryke with The Promise comic book series) are recently using the short title "Legend of Korra" (LoK), likely because TLA:LoK is just too darn long. Then there is this trademark issue with James Cameron's Avatar, which may be a USPTO-specific issue.  :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good source so we still await one, one way or the other. -Dylan0513 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra

New title: The Legend of Korra.

Sources: 1) http://bryankonietzko.tumblr.com/post/19269521479/ahhh-yeah-thats-more-like-it-much-better 2) http://www.nick.com/shows/legend-of-korra?navid=characterNav

Enough to move this page to the new name or wait for a press release? -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go with yes. Derekloffin (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

According to a tweet from Nickelodeon's official twitter account, "It's now just The Legend of Korra". — Hasdi Bravo • 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, its confirmed on Korra Nation. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's move it. Nickelodeon is about as valid a source as we can get. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put down a move tag in The Legend of Korra. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the page has been deleted, I've moved the page to The Legend of Korra as the series has been renamed. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Episode on Nick.com

They have just released the episode on Nick.com. So should would put it in the article? And when did they release the 2 episodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.54.162 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The series is receiving wide critical acclaim from several US publications, such as sites and newspapers, and I believe they should be added (Considering I can't add them myself since the article is semi protected).190.37.11.119 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have links we can add them. -Dylan0513 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.avclub.com/articles/welcome-to-republic-citya-leaf-in-the-wind,72173/ http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/television/nickelodeon-legend-korra-puts-a-kick-animated-female-heroes-article-1.1061226? http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/redeye-ghoul-the-legend-of-korra-tv-reviews-20120413,0,6185404.story http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117947378 190.37.11.119 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiro Shinobi should be added

Shiro Shinobi is a non-bending radio broadcaster who provides commentary on pro-bending matches through the radio in Republic City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.121 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wording and Phrasing

I would like to point out that one line I stumbled across, "...and is led by the daughter of Toph Beifong, who discovered the art in Avatar...", has a dangling participial, I think, making it unclear who discovered metalbending. Also, no mention is given to the first character in the original series for first expressing, I think, chi-blocking (Ty Lee), yet mention is given, albeit ambiguously, to Toph for one of her accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.180.87 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No character description for Tarrlok?

He is listed as one of the main characters in the series right now and has become a major antagonist. Think he should certainly be one of the mentioned characters in the "Characters" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.173.186 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• No one will respond to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.173.186 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

He is, you need to check your vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiyafromwhereever (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to edit wikipedia but can someone upload Tarrlok's voice actor as Dee Bradley Baker. Tons of people (including me at first) are getting confused over who it is because he's not listed. Here is a source saying it's Dee Baker. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0305834/ I also asked him on twitter and he confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.238.206 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Source Number of Chapters

At the table of where the books / chapters are mentioned, it's mentioned that the first book has 12 chapters. So far so good. But the second has 14, with a source that doesn't say anything about a second 'book' or season. Although I know there will be one, the source [11] should be changed to for example [26]. THX! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.107.250 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Portal, and Vandalism

1st, I would like it if someone would make The Legend of Korra portal.

2nd, why is there an Avatar The Last Airbender portal on a different article!?!?! I mean, thats like vandilism! Now it there was there was a The Legend of Korra portal with it, it would be fine.

3rd, on the Katara article, I suggest there should be a young Katara and an old Katara.

4th, there's not a lot of character articles for The Legend of Korra.

And Lastly, there to mush small errors on the article. I suggest we protected (some article shows have protections). {{edit semi-protected}} .

Not done: Please request protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the portal— As this is linked to The Last Airbender, I don't think it needs its own portal. Legend of Korra isn't really a big enough topic, especially since it's pretty new right now.

Regarding lack of articles— Like I stated previously, this is a fairly recent topic; in addition, it will never be as prominent as the original show. As a shorter series, it doesn't need as many character articles. It should, however have its own list of characters. It's been suggested that the characters section in the article become part of a list containing all of the characters from Avatar: The Last Airbender; however, I think that Legend of Korra should have its own list.

71.254.183.96 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

New edit Controversial ending

An addition should be made to the main page discussing the controversy surrounding the Finale and whether or not Korra was planning to commit suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackingTomato (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the finale of The Legend of Korra in that many people believe that Korra planned to commit suicide near the end of the last episode of season 1. For a children's show that is pretty grim and therefore should be talked about on the main page. here is a link to more info http://voices.yahoo.com/was-avatar-korra-contemplating-suicide-end-season-11497622.html?cat=39 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackingTomato (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is one article a controversy? It's an interesting aspect, but is that a WP:RS or an editorial opinion?  Sandstein  18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's now in the plot summary, at least.  Sandstein  18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It has since been removed due to the source in question being an opinion piece.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Princess Azula?

The opening say it takes place after the defeat of Phoenix King Ozai and Princess Azula. Shouldn't it be Fire Lord Azula? Or Fire Lord Ozai. It seems weird to give one their new rank and not the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.123.126 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Azula never technically crowned fire lord, so it's both their titles at end of series. -Dylan0513 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

True, Azula was only princess as Zuko and katara interrupted the coronation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.186.147 (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Noatok???

In Yakone's description, it's described as Noatok's father, and as I know his REAL name is Noatak. Please, correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.5.7.50 (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Format of the Characters Section

Currently there is a dispute as to how the Characters section should be written. Light2Shadow believes that we should keep it the way it is in the regular Avatar article (see Old revision of The Legend of Korra). I'd much rather follow the example set forth in WP:MOSTV (see Old revision of The Legend of Korra). I'd like to get further opinions. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 13:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the current layout that does not distinguish between "main" and "recurring" characters, because it is not clear to me how one can make this distinction without original research. Also, I don't think that the form "Janet Varney as Korra" is appropriate here, because this is an animated series: Varney does not act Korra, she only voices her. "Korra (Janet Varney)" is therefore preferable.  Sandstein  14:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated in WP:MOSTV, the distinction between primary and recurring characters should be made based on the producers' decisions. I haven't yet personally checked which are which, but if you watch the credits of a Korra episode, there will be a "Starring" section for the main cast and then an "Also starring" section for non-primary cast. This is how most TV shows, including ATLA as well, distinguish. And as for the fact that they're voice actors, it doesn't matter. The point of the format is to make the section more out-of-universe. This shouldn't be a characters section as much as it should be a casting section, which is why WP:MOSTV says an alternative would be to get rid of the Characters section altogether and simply integrate it with the Plot section. Also, I'm not sure whether the current version uses boldface properly. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the downloaded versions of the episodes I watched didn't have credits beyond a plate with the creators and directors. I wouldn't object to integrating the characters into the plot section, although that might make the plot too long.  Sandstein  18:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to double check what I was looking at. But yeah integrating into the plot section is a viable option if we can get the length down, and then real world casting information will go into the Production section. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Characters page

I was wondering what you all think about spinning off the characters section of this page. Some of the minor characters, like the Lieutenant, would probably fit better on that page. We could make a brand new page, or we could at least initially add this information on this show to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. What do you think? Oldag07 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the characters belong on theAvatar page, as the cast of the two series has only a small overlap, and there is not yet enough out-of-universe coverage (per WP:WAF) to make a separate article viable.  Sandstein  16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be the biggest reason to act least temporarily use the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters as a place to put TLOK characters. But I am not that attached to any particular set up. Oldag07 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As shown in recent edits, characters like Iroh, aren't major yet. Why can't we have these characters on either a separate page or on the ATLA characters page. Oldag07 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it merits its own page, separate from that of ALTA. This show will have as many, if not more characters than ALTA, and there is minimal overlap to them. We should prepare that it's only been one season, and we have a character section a mile long, I assume it will exponentially grow in the next 3 seasons. Grammarxxx (talk) 1:48, 24 June 2012

Actually as of right now there are only 2 season planned which will consist of 24 episodes compared to 61 for the original series. A character list for this series will likely be much shorter than the one for the original series.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Tenzin and Pema's newborn son is named Rolan, not Rohan. This could be a slightly embarrassing mistake to point out, but I am not able to fix it myself. It is possible, however, that I am mistaken. This should be confirmed sooner rather than later and duly corrected if necessary. ∑Terrentius (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)§

In response to the original request, the two articles should remain separate. The new series is completely different from ATLA, featuring different plots, backstories, and characters. The only overlap is that the events of the first series happened in the past relative to the events of Korra. And the only characters that appear in both are Aang and Katara (not counting the brief cameos of Toph and Sokka in random flashbacks). Unless the show begins demonstrating major overlaps in characters, which I strongly doubt since most of the original series characters are deceased, there should be two separate character list articles. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the merge tags as I can see no consensus here, I would wait for the character info to become more pupulated with sourced info first, there is no need to move a small bit of unsourced info to a new page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

26 more episodes

Nick has ordered 26 more episodes for the series. This is the most reliable source I found at the moment: Nickelodeon orders second season of 'The Legend of Korra'. I'm not really sure where this information should go, so I'm going to leave this here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for those who can't be bothered to read a link, this is 26 on top of the 26 already known about. They explicitly mention books 3 and 4. So, yeah, this is interesting. Probably should be added into the broadcast and production areas (assuming it isn't someone really getting their wires crossed). Derekloffin (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

Because the series will have a total of four books (functionally equivalent to the seasons of other shows, it seems), and coverage of book 2 begins to appear, I have restructured the related articles as follows:

• Book One: Air has been created, for material directly relating to that book. As currently most material is about Book One, I believe that most of the production, plot and reception content should remain in the main article for the time being, where it is easier to find for most readers. As soon as production, plot and reception content is available for book 2, we can apply summary style and move stuff into the book pages, leving only summaries in the main article.
• The main table in List of The Legend of Korra episodes has been moved to the episodes section of Book One, following the standard layout for season articles. The series overview table has been moved to the main article. This makes the list article currently superfluous, and I've redirected it to the aforementioned section. We can recreate it as soon as episode information for book 2 is available.
• The ratings table is now in {{The Legend of Korra ratings}} to allow its incorporation into all appropriate articles.
• I'll begin work on Book Two: Spirits next.  Sandstein  15:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We should already be reducing the plot summary now. There is an absurd level of detail here in the main article that is unnecessary and takes up three paragraphs for a twelve episode half-season. Also I temporarily un-redirected the main episode list article. It would be best if we followed suit with ATLA and had a short list in the main list article and then plot summaries in the books. Also we should not create Book 2 until it airs because of notability reasons. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's easier to do it like in Game of Thrones (season 1) and List of Game of Thrones episodes: a table with plot summaries in each season article, which is then combined via inclusion into one big episode list. But since only one book has aired, we don't need a separate episode list yet. This only duplicates the content.

I disagree about Book 2 not being notable, what with all the SDCC coverage. But that can be discussed at AfD if need be.  Sandstein  15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm proposing we do, as it's currently what the original series does. And you have a point there, so I might just re-redirect the list article until the second season airs. As far as the Book 2 article goes, this isn't like Game of Thrones where we have multiple sources describing what the season will be about, what new actors are being casted, etc. The only announcement of the season has been the SDCC panel, which is basically a primary source since it's all info from the show's creators. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the current version of List of The Legend of Korra episodes we have again all the introduction and context material that is in the main article and (now also) in Book 1, that is a bit much I think and invites duplication of effort. As to notability for book 2, insofar as the SDCC panel has been reported by media we have secondary sources that are sufficient for notability. As a practical matter, it's a useful WP:SS subarticle for developing coverage of book 2's production, without overwhelming the main article with that too.  Sandstein  15:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But there isn't any production to cover. The only information about the season is an announcement saying its going to happen and some minute plot details the creators decided to give out. Most of it can be summed up in about a paragraph worth of information. There's no need to have a separate article until more information is released. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because the panel was reported on by outside sources does not make them secondary sources. A source would have to be reviewing the information and synthesizing from it in order for it to qualify as a primary source (though I should note that this is not true under the traditional definition of a primary source, only under the definition in context of Wikipedia's usage of primary sources in articles and in defining WP:OR). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what others think in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2). In general, outside reporting is what conveys notability, no matter how transformative (or not - as is often the case in entertainment topics) the reporting is. 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was the (Book 1) page even created? It's way too early to even have a separate Book page. This is just causing too many problems. There's nothing wrong with the way the List of Episodes page was before. Besides the fact that there's usually a "Proposal to Split" discussion before any separate season (or book) page is created. What gave you the thought to just go ahead and create a page and think it's okay? - 50.36.95.22 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, WP:BOLD. See also the discussion below.  Sandstein  07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mako as Korra's love interest

I've noticed there seems to be some back and forth on this and figured it would be good to discuss it. Should we refer to Mako as Korra's love interest in his character summary? I realize that doing so gives away a plot point, but honestly, any new viewer tuning into the Book Two opener will have Mako and Korra's new status as a couple spoiled for them anyway, presuming they're still together at that point. And that was the role he played throughout Book One, even if he and Korra didn't end up together until the finale; their romance was a pretty important subplot. On the other hand, it might not be appropriate to refer to him as such when he only officially became Korra's boyfriend at the very end of the season.

Any thoughts on how to resolve this? HazelPen (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia doesn't censor spoilers, but there are various sources we can cite describing the romantic subplot of season 1. So I think it is accurate to describe him as a love interest (keep in mind love interest does not imply a relationship). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  17:33, 20 July 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:

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.

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)

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)

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)#Episodes. 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)#Episodes 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#Proposed redirection, 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)#Episodes, 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,[2] 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)