Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for the article "Fire Lord".

  • This space is for discussing changes to the article. Discussion on changing an infobox image or profile quote takes place on the appropriate project page for each. General discussion about the subject belongs to the comments, forum, or blog posts.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

This article is currently rated C-class on the Avatar Wiki grading system.

It says that Azula is the next fire lord but after azula it would be zuko right? Daniel 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Zuko is a traitor, he no longer "qualifies" to be the next Fire Lord, much like when he was banished. Omnibender 02:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How will azula be the fire lord if zuko is older then azula. and i think that you are right how will zuko be the next fire lord if he was banished?

--Lucylulu 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)lucylulu

Never mind spoliers would be involved Daniel 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Azula even be mentioned? Since she was never given the crown, doesn't that mean she was never officially Fire Lord?

--8th Mizukage 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

YEes she was never fire lordDaniel 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As the Fire Sage said, Phoenix King Ozai did decree that Azula was the new Fire Lord, she even stayed at the physical throne for a while, thing is, during her coronation, she was overthrown. She didn't become the Fire Lord officially, but she did exercise the position, and thus is mentioned. Omnibender 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why unofficially exercising a position gives her that position in the ummm history books Felinoel 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Yes its should be noted, but she should not be listed under Fire Lords nor should her, Zuko, or Ozai's pages say she succeeded or preceded anyone because she didn't. She never actually held the position, therefore listing her is lying. Even if she exercised the position unofficially, SHE WAS NEVER FIRE LORD. It is as simple as that.

--8th Mizukage 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no need to shout, your reasoning makes sense. Omnibender 15:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not yelling, if I was I would have put ! at the end.

--8th Mizukage 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just associate something written in caps as yelling. Omnibender 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone does? Its pretty common to associate that Felinoel 05:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to make a point, not yell. I really think that this article, along with Zuko, Ozai, and Azula need to be protected. People don't seem to accept the fact that Azula should not be listed as Fire Lord because she never was one, and she never succeeded nor preceded one.

--8th Mizukage 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you mean she never officially was Felinoel 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


A picture of the current Fire Lord, Zuko to the right of the timeline would seem appropriate, does anyone have any good Fire Lord Zuko pics? Felinoel 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone not like this picture? Felinoel 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The only image of him as Fire Lord the Wikia has is the one with him and Aang just before the coronation, he doesn't have the five pronged thing, so I don't think it'd be good to use that image. Omnibender 15:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, well the one I had was a close up of his face with a stern look matching the other two, which is why I chose it... Felinoel 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong title?

Even if Azula was crowned, she wouldn't be a Fire Lord, She'd be a Fire Lady, wouldn't she? Master Waterbender 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Azula. Omnibender - Talk 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fire Lady is generally the lesser title given to the partner of the Fire Lord, Lords were the ones in power, Ladies were the ones who had some benefits of their marriage felinoel ~ (Talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

fire lady is a lesser title given to the fire lords wife but we don't know what powers a fire lady has. User Talk:Azulalove

It's hard to imagine that the title of Fire Lord is gender neutral. Zukofan123 07:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats because all Crowned Fire Lords were male. But since Azula would have been crowned if not for the intervention of Zuko and Katara, therefore it is safe to assume gender-neutrality. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then let's see if the title of fire lady is gender neutral also. lol Zukofan123 07:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dont be a fool. The title of the male spouse of a female Fire Lord is still unknown. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK don't be so cold! Zukofan123 07:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am as cold as I need to be. But not always. (Smile) Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 08:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fan of Azula, eh? how I admire you. ok I'm shutting now. Zukofan123 08:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite Frankly, I think she was certifiably insane right from the beginning. Well, a sociopath at the very least. And no, I'm merely interested in this for the correctness of the article. Also I thank you for endng this. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I just looked at screenshots of "The Avatar and the Fire Lord" and at least one features the hall of Fire Lords, which displays all of the known Fire Lords plus the unknown ones. Shall we add this to the page? I think it would be a good addition.Fire Eater 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Upload the image so we can see it. We can't approve it if we can't see the image. It sounds like a good addition from what you have said. Please upload it. Mattkenn3 Talk 23:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Not to jump the gun, but I really like this one. Puragus - Talk 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! That's the one. Not to get carried away, but do you think it is possible to get a close-up shot of Azulon's image, which is to the right of Sozin? I ask because we already have the tapestries of Ozai and Sozin prominently featured. If this is not possible, please disregard.Fire Eater 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That was funny. Puragus just beat me to it. I had an edit conflict trying to put up the same thing. Ha. I like the image. Mattkenn3 Talk 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to get a close-up, but there's another image not so long after this one that shows a better look at Azulon's portrait and Sozin's dad's portrait. (I'll let you guys upload it, if you want to. It does have a more detailed look at those two portraits). On a completely unrelated note: is that a compass rose that Sozin's dad is holding? Puragus - Talk 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That is strange. I'm about to go eat my supper, happy editing. Mattkenn3 Talk 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


I think I saw on that the actual spelling of it is Firelord not Fire Lord. Although even if it's not correct, I can understand why if you guys would like to keep the current spelling; it would be a major pain to change the spelling when that word is on many many many many articles. Alex101313 - Talk 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether you say Firelord or Fire Lord its basically the same thing and besides it could be a simple spelling mistake. Also the major pain thing is also correct so I really think it should stay the way it is. Lol. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 10:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Why are there references to a made-up title "Fire Lady Regent", and why were references to the title of Fire Lord being gender-neutral removed? Azula was clearly shown becoming Fire Lord, making it at least somewhat gender neutral. The only time we saw the possibility of a female ruler of the Fire Nation, she was called the Fire Lord, and there were never any references to any other title. We can infer from this that the previous information was true. We need to remove the references to any made-up titles and state that the title of Fire Lord is clearly gender neutral. Puragus Talk 06:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll take a look at the page now. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title is gender-neutral but I thought that we had agreed that Azula was never crowned Fire Lord. Please do not make the same mistake again. You said she was Fire Lord in your last Post. Quoted from Puragus' Last Post: "Azula was clearly shown becoming Fire Lord." Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what I meant, please don't jump over every little mistake. I'm very aware that Azula was never technically the Fire Lord. Puragus Talk 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay. I only said it to avoid confusion amoungst readers. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 07:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper spelling?

I was just browsing through the synopsis of the second and third book collections, and I saw that it said Firelord, and not Fire Lord. Now, if I'm not mistaken (which I might), the episode is also called The Avatar and The Firelord and not Fire Lord as two separate words.

Now this was already posted above, but the issue hasn't been resolved and there haven't been many contributors to place their input. What do you guys think? Is there a system that the admins can use to mass-change all text, in case we decide on changing?

PakkuSig copy рrofile · tаlk 05:08, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

My DVD and iTunes say this too, I'm for changing, but this would require help from everyone to change every mention of Fire Lord to Firelord.--Courage 05:13, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I believe so too. I've seen it spelled Fire Lord AND Firelord on this site in a few places, if I recall. Might be wrong there, but if my memory was correct I had seen that and didn't like the inconsistency. Also please note: Fire Lady is spaced apart just like Fire Lord right now.... so take it into consideration. Vulmen (talkcontribs) 05:20, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well, does anyone think that may have spelt it that way? I wasn't around for the decision, and since the current way is the most common out side the fanon portal, think we should just go with Fire Lord? --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 13:36, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

This is a canon wiki, bos. Even if it takes lots of work, we should try and provide all info we have and this is how every available sources lists it.--Courage 22:37, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't change how it is said, and think that Fire Lord is more consistant with everything else ie the Earth King not Earthking, Fire Lady, not Firelady, Fire Nation not Firenation and so on. I think that it is fine how it is. Ragnell wielder (talkcontribs) 20:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ragnell. What I was saying Courage, is that I know that we're a canon wiki (I've advocated canonocity a lot). It sounds more gramatically correct the way it's written. I've seen it both ways on various sites, so I see no reason to change. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 20:55, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
kinda unrelated but you can just call me Ike instead Ragnell wielder, i just chose ragnell wielder because it is the name of the sword that ike from fire emblem uses. [[User Ragnell wielder|Ike]] (talkcontribs) 05:46, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this because official sources list is as Firelord, just like official sources call it Earth King.--Courage 20:57, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Si what are we doing about this?Sincerely,

Courage the Cowardly User Talk Contributions 02:34, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Water Spout just found a page in one of the info books that lists the title as Fire Lord. That means that some sources leave it as Fire Lord, while others leave it as Firelord. And based on what's more gramatically correct, I say that Fire Lord should stay. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 02:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
@ The Bos -- No, it's not grammatically incorrect, it's syntactically incorrect... And even that is arguable. Here's my 2-cent: The If we go by the "grammatical" argument, we would need to change "Firebending" to "Fire Bending" and so on and so forth. I prefer the spelling of firelord. Furthermore, almost every source indicates the title as such. For example: "Firelord Azulon" is the title mentioned, not "Fire Lord Azulon". Since is does refer to a title, the spelling "firelord" is commonly accepted by the MLA and Chicago manual of style. Technically, it could be changed to "Fire-lord", which would also be correct (though not necessary). Further evidence supports the spelling of "Firelord". For example, one can find throughout several comic strips and novels by serious authors the spelling "firelord". In fact, the Marvel universe (I think) has a character called Firelord (which was later turned into a video-game in the 1980's). Regards, Nick Lewis (talkcontribs) 03:10, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, more sources point to fire lord than Fire Lord.Courage the Cowardly User Talk Contributions 03:17, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Support Support —--Courage 05:55, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support Support —--VJavatar The Last Wikibender(AR) 21:06, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support Support —, Nick Lewis (talkcontribs) 03:10, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Oppose Oppose — --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 20:55, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose — Ike 05:35, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:
Fire Lord can be spelled either Fire Lord or Firelord.
If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Origin of the Fire Lord

Okay.  Originally it was established in the forgotten scrolls that the firelord was once a theocracy with it's origins in the fire sages. Then smoke and shadow came out which talked about the first Fire Lord.  Whereas this clearly established the origin of the fire lords a certain editor preferred to effectively ignore this, treat it as a conflict and return to the fire sages origin as effectively the 'true origin' of the fire lords.  Despite my attempts to edit this another editor decided to undo this and bring this to the message wall.  So what do others think?  I think it's clear that whatever origin was given in material outside of the series is effectively retconned by any story from the original makers.  Remember when the avatar was originally held to be the spirit of the planet?  and remember how after the origin story came out this site effectively retconned that origin story so that the original origin was still relevant oh wait.  No it didn't.  I also don't think it's right for someone to make it out as if something was stated in a certain source that wasn't (i.e. that smoke and shadow part 2 said that the first fire lord's regime collapsed).

Besides, why couldn't the first fire lord still be the leader of the fire sages as opposed to someone completely different? (Anonymius (wallcontribs) 22:46, February 9, 2017 (UTC))

My issue with what the origins of the Fire Lord as shown in Smoke and Shadow Part 2 is that it contradicts both information that is established chronologically before (AtLA series), and information that was established chronologically after (LoK series), not only about the origins of the Fire Lord title, but of the general timeline of the franchise. Most of my rationale on what does and doesn't work between all sources is explained at length at that graphic novel's talk page, just ignore the massive leaps of logic and speculation whenever there was a reply by Hasdi. I don't particularly agree with there being two origins of the Fire Lord title, but to my knowledge about the discussions of this topic, this is the explanation that requires the least assumptions. This isn't like the Avatar spirit issue, where that was never concretely became part of the franchise. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:01, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean it contradicts what was established in the series?  From what I understand the whole 'firelord was originally the head fire sage' was only established once in extra material that was never mentioned in the stories.  Anyway you can't just ignore what is now canon and completely make up your own history for the series in order to resolve an apparent contradiction, this isn't like what the Star Wars EU did when it was established that the old republic was only a thousand years old when it was long established in the EU that it was 25000 so someone went ahead with 'actually, that date is just due to this reformation, where before the republic had effectively ceased, but not really'. Anonymius (wallcontribs) 12:23, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is about when those events happened. In Smoke and Shadow Part 2, they show that establishment of the Fire Lord and the unification of several territories into the Fire Nation at a time they say before the Avatar came to be, and even if the Lost Scrolls bit of trivia didn't exist, that wouldn't track with the series timeline. Before Wan became the Avatar, humanity lived on Lion Turtle cities for so long they forgot other cities and humans existed, as established in LoK. That means that the four nations as they were only came to be during the last ten millennia, making it impossible for a country like the Fire Nation to have existed in any way before that point and continued to have existed until the present day. Please do go read that discussion in the other talk page. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:52, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
I knew that was what you were basing your objections on, and Zuko only suggested that the reason the Avatar never stopped the kidnapping of children was perhaps this was before the Avatar, the series never confirmed that the fire lords did in fact exist before the Avatar.
Also if I go on that other talk page and find no one pointed out that Zuko only said maybe this was before I will be shocked.  Then again on a thread where people debated whether Toph was alive when Katara said many of her friends were gone no one pointed out that many was not the same as all, so maybe not that shocked. Anonymius (wallcontribs) 19:11, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
I pointed that out myself. In fact, when Smoke and Shadow Part 2 came out, I was the first one to start a discussion on the matter, trying to get people involved in figuring stuff out. The way things are written are the result of what people in the community managed to come up with, with the least amount of interpretation. That said, the point is in the absence of a perfect explanation, you alone don't get to decide to change one imperfect solution to another potentially more imperfect one. Not when the first one is something that the part of the community that bothered to discuss it agreed on, and when there has been no new material that would change anything. I'm not particularly fond of how things are currently written, but if you want to make such a significant change to the article, disregarding multiple sources that do support each other, get the community on your side. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:52, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

Yes I read that talk page, which is why I was surprised to read that you originally argued that the first fire lord had to have existed during the existence of the avatar, whereas now you’re saying that SS states that it happened before.  In fact, it seemed people were in general agreement that it must have happened during the avatar’s existence, it was never about how it apparently happening before affected the timeline, but really how it related to the original origin. 

And how exactly is interpreting the origin in ss and the origin in ls to be separate with the ls effectively the ‘true’ ‘modern’ origin of the fire lord when that is clearly not the case using the least amount of interpretation?  The least amount of interpretation would have been to combine them, not treat them as separate with the SS effectively irrelevant by making up a regime collapse and misusing the reference?  How is deleting this false fact (with the whole ls origin getting caught in the process) and portraying the ss origin as the origin of the fire lords which is the clear intent ‘potentially more imperfect’ than tolerating a fictional history (And yes, I understand the irony of saying that when this is all a fictional history)?  Also from my understanding of reading that other talk page, nothing was actually agreed on, an administrator just stated how it should be but left it open to be changed.  And I find it ironic that you say there has been no new material that would change anything when that is exactly what SS is.

As for disregarding multiple sources, I only ever disregarded one, which I think is clearly and pretty obsolete at this point.

However I do apologise for accusing you of this made up history, I saw that was someone else. Anonymius (wallcontribs) 21:12, February 10, 2017 (UTC) 

How's this as a compromise?  Get rid of the regime collapsing, but keep in how the fire lord was the original head sage? Anonymius (wallcontribs) 15:18, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

I shall take the fact that there's been no response to mean I can go ahead.  Hopefully my edit won't be undone this time. Anonymius (wallcontribs) 12:03, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best to take this entire thing to the War Room for a more public discussion that can create a true consensus. To generate the best possible outcome, it wouldn't be bad to invite the people involved in the original decision making that lead to the addition of the disputed history section.
Also, oldest idea in the book when it comes to discussions about content: we could try to contact the creators and/or Gene Yang. Wikia managed to get the former to do a Q/A at one point here on the wiki, while one of our users conducted an interview with Gene Yang. Perhaps one of them could offer some more official insight to these discrepancies. Lady Lostris @fandom / Wiki.png 12:33, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
Here is what was said by an administrator on the smoke and shadow talk page: "If listing that the first Fire Lord's regime fell after a prolonged era of peace is speculative then that can be easily reworked".  So that is what I did.  Does this really need to be taken to the war room?  Although I do like the idea of contacting and creators and/or Gene Yang to get this resolved once and for all. Anonymius (wallcontribs) 17:10, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
If there is a dispute regarding content and what can reasonably be assumed vs. what's speculation, then the WR is the best way to provide some consensus on the matter.
Just as a general note, the fact that it was an administrator who said that doesn't mean anything, as our opinion hold no extra value. Lady Lostris @fandom / Wiki.png 21:44, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.