I'm not sure I agree with terming Mai's relationship with Zuko in ATLA as making her a consort (under the assumption they did not then marry), and certainly not as a mistress. Consort generally only applies upon marriage, and mistress is used for extramarital affairs. Zuko and Mai's relationship is more like boyfriend/girlfriend, which doesn't apply to either of these.
Huazo was a mistress while Chaeryu had no official wife. They were teenage sweethearts, girlfriend and boyfriend, just like Zuko and Mai. Yet Huazo is clearly termed a mistress. Therefore, Mai, who was in same position, is strictly speaking also one.
I haven't read TSoK, so if I state something incorrect just tell me.
That they have the same relationship doesn't mean the term also applies though. Huazo's position may have been referred to as mistress, but I think it is too much of a leap to say that the term also applies to Mai in the same way without it clearly being stated. Unless it is stated that, generically, the partner of a male Fire Lord is always termed as such.
Mmmh, the issue is that Huazo is mostly talked about as head of her clan and mother of Chaejin, not as Chaeryu's lover. From what I could see, their relationship is only properly adressed in two chapters. In "Ancient History", however, they do not talk at all about her exact position - only that of her son. In "The Companion", she says that she was the "Fire Lord's mistress". As far as I can see, it is the only time in the entire novel that her former position is properly adressed. So it seems fair to call her "mistress".
As for Mai, perhaps we indeed change it to the more generic "girlfriend"? I don't think that her position was ever adressed in the comics, either.
Hey DFT, I was wondering if you could provide some clarity on this, as I believe you added it based on the Kyoshi novels, but due to some shuffling around of info, the references got jumbled. Thanks already for taking a look!
Hey DFT, may I ask where you read that the group is called "The Barbarians"? The section in the artbook refers to them generically as barbarians, not really as group named "The Barbarians"--unless I missed that entry of course, hence my question.
I thought that the page's title was to be read as "The Barbarians", and therefore as the group's name. If that is too vague for a proof (admittedly, they use lower-case "barbarians" while referring to the gang members), we can also move the article the "Barbarians (gang)" or to "Gombo's gang" or "Gombo's barbarians".
To avoid an edit war, since I still strongly disagree with your notion that making the distinction makes it more unclear when the very reason I changed it in the first place was because it currently is confusing and unclear.
For example, seeing that Rangi was listed as a deceased character confused me, as she's a Kyoshi novel character, which thus firstly struck me as being a major spoiler, before thinking indeed "right, currently timeline". If I already wondered about, what will a user with less knowledge about the workings of the wiki say about it? The easy solution is to just make the distinction per show/book from where we know the character from. That also instantly gives the additional added value that you from where those characters came from. I could agree with the notion that it's too OOU (although we use it on the bending pages as well), but then I would counter that we can just easily put some dates then, because being "notable" by itself is also very subjective and time-bound.
Also, if you throw them all together, we basically need to list everyone, save for the TLoK characters, as dead, which makes it a very redundant thing to do.
So if we want to keep those lists clear logical, we should either insert a distinction to indicate in which time period a certain character is considered to be deceased or we should just do away with the deceased indication altogether.
Another bonus to have the distinction per time period is that it allows you to indicate character movements. Take Aang for example, he's a notable Southern Air Temple figure in ATLA but also a notable Republic City in TLoK. You and I know that because we know the series by heart and know how those pages word. Other people do not, which is confusing.
Simply put, I feel differently; for me, seeing characters listed several times, not to mention characters who lived at the same time split into different sections (Kyoshi's daughter Koko, for example, who lived during Kyoshi's time, but is not listed in the novel section as she was born after the novels - yet stll hundreds of years before ATLA) seems extremely odd and IMO confusing. I see your point, but it is probably an issue of perception and thus subjective.
I also think that people moving from one place to another is not an issue at all. Today, many people have several areas they regard as homes or are otherwise attached to. In the Avatar universe, the same is true: Kyoshi herself was not born on Kyoshi Island, and neither was Jianzhu, yet both regarded it as their home. The same is true about Aang and others such as Katara: Katara spent much of her adult life away from the South Pole, and clearly saw Air Temple Island as her home, yet always remained attached to the Southern Tribe, even spending her later years there. To list Aang as person of the Southern Temple in ATLA, but as Republic City citizen in LOK would downplay these dual loyalities and attachements, and I think that we shouldn't do this.
Other than the issue in regards of people being listed as deceased, unified in-universe lists seem to have worked for the past years; I feel that they should remain as they are - except extremely long lists (such as with benders).
In fact, however, I strongly agree with removing the deceased indication from the lists. Since Lao Ge and some other characters such as Tienhai have appeared who have showcased that immortality is possible and mortality can be fluid in the Avatar universe, these indications have become flawed anyway (how should one list Iroh or the Painted Lady, for example? They are not dead in the truest sense). In addition, we might get more novels / comics about past Avatars in the future which would bring even more confusion to the lists.
In addition, as you brought "notability" up: We should probably discuss who is "notable" in regards to the nation articles; for example, the list of characters on the Earth Kingdom article is extremely arbitrary. We should clarify whether "major" characters in the shows, novels, and comics should be listed or characters who were important in-universe. As an example: The 46th Earth King is an extremely minor character in the shows, yet very important for the Earth Kingdom's history.
I noticed you removed the part about Iroh being named after "Uncle" Iroh because it's unconfirmed, however wouldn't you think that something like that doesn't need to be specifically "confirmed" to be true? Voiced by Dante Basco, named Iroh, the way they revealed his name the first time we saw him was a pretty big reveal. Also, HoT mentioned on the Discord that Bryan Konietzko referred to him as "Iroh the Younger" which may be considered confirmation as well.
I know it seems obvious, but it matters that we have no source outright confirming it. For example, everyone always just believed that Avatar Kyoshi was born on the later Kyoshi Island - it was a natural conclusion, so it was included on the wiki for years. But no source actually stated that she had been born there - only that it had been her home for much of her life. As it turned out, Rise of Kyoshi revealed that it was completely wrong.
These issues crop up now and then. I know that it feels annoying, but as the Kyoshi example showcases, we cannot just assume something because all evidence seems to indicate it. We have to get a canon source.
Hey there DFT! First of all, I hope you're doing well! Secondly, I saw you added locations of Zigan and Hujiang, and wanted to quickly point out that I believe there might be a mistake on the map given with the B&N edition. Though it is possible that Zigan isn't a part of the Eastern Provinces, or the Provinces is weridly not in the east, the book very clearly says that Hujiang is in the Taihua Mountains and the mountains are located in south of Ba Sing Se. I don't have the book with me right now, but if I remember correctly there was even an entire passage about the mountains, saying how it protected Ba Sing Se from the armies coming from south. There's even a part in the book where the group get pretty close to the walls of Ba Sing Se while going from Hujiang to Zigan, which wouldn't be possible according to this map. What are your thoughts about it, and if you agree which location should we use?
I swear I'm not stalking you ;-p Another question: do you have a source for this edit? Save from starting from the notion that Kuei is 25 in ATLA, as was stated on his article? We're trying to track down the source of that number, without any tangible results thus far.
Well, Jinpa says: "You see, it's customary to maintain a level of separation between those who've taken a life, directly or indirectly, and those who have remained spiritually pure." Kyoshi reflects that Kelsang saved the lives of countless villagers by killing pirates, yet was treated as unclean.
I believe that self-defense is also included due to the "directly or indirectly" line. Might be a stretch. Anyway, one should also not forget that about three hundred years passed between Kyoshi's early life and Gyatso's time. Philosophies change. In fact, the novel's chapter 1 mentions that the Air Nomads had become extremely detached from the world by Kyoshi's time. Jinpa was also treated as a oddity among his peers due to him managing the temple and its economy instead of focusing on enlightenment. By Aang's time, the Air Nomads actually appear to have taken greater interest in world affairs and non-spirtual matters.
Indirectly killing someone could also be not helping someone in need when you know you can and your inactivity will result in their death (like in modern times not calling an ambulance for someone who's been beaten to near death). So I do think dragging self-defense into that may be too much of an assumption. Self-defense nearly always changes things.