Talk: Hair loopies

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for the article "Hair loopies". 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.

How To

Does anyone know how to make the hairstyle "hair loopies"? Thanks! Warrior Suki 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just take two small strands of hair and pin them to the back of your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.171.183 (wall • contribs) 09:55, 21 June 2010

Name

I think the name "hair loopies" was merely used by Sokka in Imprisoned for lack of a better word. Telos 08:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though hair loopies was probably just sokka talking, I enjoy the term...even it it might be just hair loops—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.73.37 (wall)

Bumping. Loopy (loopies, as the case may be) is not a noun that I am aware of; the name should be changed to "hair loop."Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 04:08, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. While it isn't a noun, it is actually just describing Katara's hair in the plural form–her hair is styled into two loops over her forehead'. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 04:10, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

It may be describing her hair, but I don't see how that makes it any less incorrect. The fact that it's not a real word and just a Sokka-ism makes it a very unencyclopedic term to use for the name of an article, I think. :/ Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 04:13, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Either way, it's 'unencyclopaedic', because it's not been verified as being the real name. That being said, it was called, in-universe, as being 'hair loopies'. To change it to 'hair loop' is to imply there is only one, to which I disagree. I also think that, regardless of whether it's a noun or verb, the name, as it was mentioned in-universe, is more correct than something we come up with (unless there is something very wrong with it. The closest example I can think of is us changing 'Shrewish Mother' as it appeared on nick.com, to 'Yon Rha's mother'. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 04:17, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

I personally am fine with keeping the name as is. "Loopies" may not be real from our perspective, but it could very well be the correct term or at the very least an informal term (the type of which is used by Wikipedia, so standards wise I think it's acceptable). In any case, the term "hair loopies" was used repeatedly in series by Sokka, in School Time Shipping by Jet, and in the pilot commentary by Mike, so we could add some references and such to validate its use. Water Spout 04:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think perspective has anything to do with it. Personally, I just feel it's naive to take a running gag in the show and among the producers as fact.Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 04:39, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that the term is supported and used by several canon sources as aforementioned. I personally don't see a reason to insert a new term when there's one provided. Water Spout 04:48, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Because the old term is a linguistic aberration? :) Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 04:53, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

[Reset indent] I don't think that's a good enough reason to name an article with IU sources, resuting in a massive link change on every page it is featured on. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 04:54, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

If we were to take every deviation from the norm and change it so it's less "naive", it's a lot of unnecessary work for no substantial purpose. I still don't see a reason. Linguistic aberrations are not always ungrammatical. Water Spout 05:07, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

We do have redirects, so it's not as significant as you purport it to be. Also, I think it's important to consider critically the context of canon sources, and not just take them for granted. If the name "Combustion Man" wasn't provided by a canon source, would we have kept "Sparky Sparky Boom Man?" I would hope not, since this was clearly another Sokka-ism. Technically, in a canon source, Katarra claims that a disguised Aang is her grandfather, yet we know this isn't true because of context: Aang is in disguise and they are trying to conceal the fact he is the Avatar as they make their way into Omashu. Common sense would also tell you that Sokka just used hair "loopies" because he didn't know what else to call them; and yet here we are trying to make the case that in the Avatar world, hair loopies are an actual term, different in some way from hair loops. It all seems rather silly, don't you think?
Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 05:09, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the word aberration implies by its very meaning that it would be ungrammatical, though grammar is not the issue here, as this is not a matter of syntax.Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 05:10, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

And again, I'm hearing a lot of "it's a bother" kind of talk, which doesn't sound like a sound argument to me. :P Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 05:12, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

It has never been called 'hair loop'. Ever. With or without context, that term is still absolutely, undeniably, incorrect. And, just for an idea, 'Combustion Man' would likely have been named something along the lines of 'Fire Nation assassin', as he was called that several times, I believe. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 05:14, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's silly as I've already reasoned so many times before. But I'm tired of having an endless back and forth with you since you won't even seem to consider any other reasoning, so I'll leave the conversation with my vote to keep the article the same. Water Spout 05:17, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Why? If Sparky Sparky Boom Man is from a canon source? :P And it isn't incorrect, it's the real-world term. "Loopies" has no precedent in the English language and no logical reason why it would be a separate term, unique to the Avatar universe. And lol, Water Spout. How could you reason many times before that taking a canon source out of context isn't silly if I had never brought it up before? XD
Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 05:19, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

So is 'Shrewish mother', but we did away with that. But, 'Fire Nation assassin' is also correct and sounds better. And that wasn't what WS said. You asked, "it all seems rather silly, don't you think?" in the context of 'hair loopies' being an actual term in the Avatar world. He says it isn't silly. I should probably warn you that most people don't like words being put in their mouths as you have just done. And that is far different from inference, just so you know.

All right, I'm sick of this. I vote not to rename the page. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 05:24, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

And since when are discussions "pointless back and forth"s? Just because I don't see you point of view right now doesn't mean that I won't "consider any other reasoning," lol. You haven't made any good points, yet you lash out at me for not accepting you views? Whoa! Can't make sense of that one, ha. And no, Fruipit, that isn't what I asked. Considering it was my question, I think I would be the better judge of what I was asking, lol. And yet you accuse me of putting words in other people's mouths, haha. The last time we tried to discuss something, you did quite a lot of that as I recall. And saying things like "I'm sick of this" when things aren't going your way is sort of immature, don't ya think? :PLord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 05:28, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

[Reset indent] I'm getting the feeling that conversations with you are pointless anyway, as they are back and forths. This is not a discussion. This is you giving every reason except for a good one as to why this page should be changed. The benefits you are proposeing are... what, exactly? Proper English? Yeah, no, that does not justify an innaccurate rename of a page that is canonically correct. And that is obviously how everyone else took it, so perhaps you should be clearer next time. I am sick of your immature attitude. Adding emoticons does not make your points any less irritating. Since you seem incapable of seeing my points, and providing your own, I'll list them.

• It has been used in-universe as the name of the object.
• It perfectly describes said object
• As WS said, it is in-universe, and thus doesn't not have to be 'real' by our standards.
• Supported by several canon sources
• A ridiculous amount of work to make an insignificant change

As another note, comments such as "Whoa! Can't make sense of that one, ha" really are not conducive ti 'discussion', as you call it, and really only fan the flame. Refrain from doing so in the future. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 06:13, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

"The benefits you are proposeing [sic] are... what, exactly? Proper English?" Yeah, because that's a horrible reason. And "refrain from doing so in the future"? Ay, yay, yay. When will you stop ordering me around, mister? :/ If you don't like this back and forth, why are you still back-and-forthing? You say I'm not providing any points of my own, and yet you said what it was in the quote above. Proper English. This isn't rocket science, lol. I'm not sending you encrypted messages or smoke signals, I think my meaning is pretty clear. And I'm not the one with the immature attitude. I believe you're the one whose spending an unnecessary amount of calories trying to insult and bait me into arguing with you, when that doesn't really help solve the issue at hand. "Whoa! Can't make sense out of that one, ha" is hardly fanning any flames. I was reacting to you lashing out at me, so considering that that was what I was talking about, accusing me of fanning flames seems a bit hypocritical (as you were lashing out at me, which you fail to deny in your quoting of me), but since the whole point of this conversation hinges on your apparent perception that context is unimportant when interpreting canon, the oversight in your comment may not be so surprising.

• "It has been used in-universe as the name of the object" Ignoring the light-hearted context of the situation in which it is said.
• "It perfectly describes said object" Except for the fact that it isn't a real word...
• "As WS said, it is in-universe, and thus doesn't not have to be 'real' by our standards" Again, context matters.
• "Supported by several canon sources" Context.
• "A ridiculous amount of work to make an insignificant change" Since when was laziness a valid reason for not doing something? XD

And lastly and least importantly, since you seem determined to even nitpick my use of emoticons (which seems petty and the only thing you could expect to accomplish is get me angry [which I'm not :)]), I'm using them to let you know that I'm neither annoyed nor angry and to prevent the emotions in this discussion from escalating, so that you know that this isn't personal, but about the issue we're discussing. This has not prevented you from getting angry, however; and I'm sorry that I seem to have gotten under your skin, but my reasons, even though you alternatively say they either aren't good or don't exist at all (which seems contradictory: how can they be bad reasons if I haven't presented any?), haven't been overruled by your reasons (for the reasons [pardon the repetition] listed above). So the reason [bleh, really sorry] this seems like a "useless" back and forth is because I haven't rolled over and accepted your line of argument. If you made a good point that I couldn't find any fault with, then naturally I would concede the matter to you. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to express my views, have you respect them, and to reach the best result for the wiki. And until I think that's happened, I'm not going to say "you're right, how silly of me" and walk away. That doesn't make this a useless discussion, it doesn't mean I hate you, it doesn't mean you have to hate or belittle me, it just means we disagree and I see no reason why you have to make it about anything more than that.Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 06:40, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

The one benefit of proper English does not justify the work required to cater to a single user. And, fyi, I'm female.

Laziness is not a valid reason, and yet neither is 'improper English'. 'Badgerfrog' is not a real word. Neither is waterbending, nor 'greaseberry bramble '. So, that argument about improper English is completely invalid when we have other articles that are not actually English. I'm not seeing the 'context' argument. The fact that the article is called Combustion Man is because it was used more often in the series, has canonical sources, just like 'hair loopies', and was the name adopted by the rest of 'Team Avatar'.

As for your use of emotes, they have no place in a discussion. Quite frankly, it looks more like you're writing to rile people up when emotes are introduced. So, you may not be annoyed, but when I'm having a serious discussion, I prefer not to have 'xD' halfway through. It lessens the discussion and is annoying. Your reasons are bad because you've failed to provide justification beyond 'proper english!'. So, no, it's not because "[you] haven't rolled over and accepted your line of argument" that this seems like a pointless back-and-forward. It seems like that because you are not bringing anything to the table beyond 'well, it can't exist as a noun in our world, and is thus invalid'. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 06:54, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'll take it point by point: It's not to cater to one user, it's to cater to the fact that we use language to communicate ideas, and if we used the wrong language, the bonds that tie our civilization together would disintegrate. That's a bit extreme, I admit, but imagine if you went to the store, asked for herring, and got salmon instead? Anarchy. So, in a nut shell, language is important. But that's just my take, so please don't tease me for it. :P And if you really think it would be a big deal, I'm perfectly willing to take the responsibility to change the word myself in every article in which it appears, assuming a bot couldn't do it. Lastly, I apologize for confusing your gender. I didn't see any indication of it in your user header, though I see it now on the infobox on your user page.

Badgerfrog, etc. aren't real words, yes but they have logical reasons as to why they would be unique to the Avatar world. People aren't misidentifying animals, they are correctly identifying animals unique to the Avatar world, so it makes sense why they would use a word we don't have use. Context is important, you see? As I said earlier, "'Loopies' has no precedent in the English language and no logical reason why it would be a separate term, unique to the Avatar universe." So it's more than just that I think it's bad because there's no precedent, but also "no logical reason why it would be a separate term," as I explained in more detail a few sentences ago. Badgerfrog has a logical reason for being a unique word, hair loopies doesn't. In context, Sokka we know is a goofball and is likely to have just made it up; so it's unlikely, therefore, that it is a real word, even in the Avatar universe. If Katarra said hair loopy, I wouldn't be arguing about this. But it was Sokka and that changes the context of the information.

I'm sorry my use of emoticons annoy you; nevertheless I will continue to use them whenever I make a statement that sounds harsh in text, but if I said it out loud it wouldn't sound that way. I don't usually use them, since they aren't very professional, but given my difficulties in apparently offending people by my way of speaking, I felt it was necessary. Given the choice between sounding like a grouch and sounding like an aloof peon, I'll have to take the latter, since I feel like using them keeps me reminded that none of this important enough to get angry over. And that we're all editors with the same goals (mostly). And keeping that in mind prevents me from getting angry and making other comments that would just make people even more upset. So, no negative feedback loops.

Lastly, that's all I'm bringing to the table because that's all I need to bring to the table. If that's not sufficient for you, it isn't fair to ignore it and expect better reasons from me since that's the one I'm giving. It's as simple as "it's not proper English and unprofessional, especially when we can just use 'hair loop' instead, which is accurate and (considering that's what they are, Sokka aside) an accurate term for something that exists in canon."Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 07:35, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

The issue it seems you have with that word is purely because it's an adjective, thus cannot be used as a noun. Am I correct? Also, despite 'loopies' not being recognised in official dictionaries does not mean it is not a word. Have you ever read The Jabberwocky, by C. S. Lewis? There are two types of people when it comes to language; those that believe the rules should be followed, no matter what (the ones that tend to abhor change and the use of 'who' when it should be 'whom'), and the ones that think that people can only grow and change if languages grow and change (the ones that marvel at how swearing has evolved over the years). 'Loopies' is perfectly understandable to English speakers. Just because it is not an official word does not make it any less real. We understand that by adding the suffix 'y/ies', the meaning becomes adjectival—having the property of a loop. Being loop-like.

See above paragraph regarding language and how it is understood. 'Loopies' does have precedent, with the root—loop—then being tied to a suffix—'-ies'—it becomes a new word. Loopies is pperfectly logical, otherwise it wouldn't be understood. On its own, the word 'slode' is illogical, but in context, can make perfect sense. 'That slode looked really cool!' is taken to be a noun. Again, I refer back to The Jabberwocky. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 07:47, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new word where one did not exist before is one thing, creating a word that better describes something than a pre-existing word another still, but creating a new word that does not do a better job than the word that already exists (and in fact is based on unsound morphological principles) is useless and degenerate. Why reinvent the wheel? Unless you're making a better wheel or a wheel that serves a more specific purpose, it's pointless and irresponsible, just as change for the sake of change, in general, is counterproductive and destructive. But needless to say, I doubt that Sokka had such an esoteric agenda when he said "loopies," he was just being his quirky self.Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 08:11, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

[Reset indent] What part of my explanation was unsound? It was the very opposite of an 'unsound morphological principle'. It's the same principle as adding '-ed' to make a word past tense, or 'un-' to make it a negative of the root. 'Loopies' is perfectly valid a word. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 08:17, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

No part of your explanation was unsound. In fact, your explanation was very satisfactory. Rather, it was the process that you were describing that I found unsound. It certainly works, but its basis in convention is shaky. Adding '-ies' to an adjective to make it a plural noun is not exactly a standard, widespread origin for most nouns. Loopy is the adjective form of loop, a noun, which is then further re-transformed into a noun as loopies? That doesn't seem like a sound procedure to me. But let us keep in mind that Sokka was the one who made the word, not you. So my criticism hardly reflects on your explanation, but rather Sokka's language skills.
Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 08:31, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents: "Hair loopies" may not be a completely correct in the English language, but it was the only way how the hair style was referenced in the show. As such, since we are a wiki about Avatar, Avatar fans will come here and they will search things according to how they were named in the show. As such, it is normal that a person wondering about Katara's hair style would come here searching for hair loopies -the term they heard on the show. But as was pointed out on other renaming discussions: if you want to change something substantial like this, you just start a War Room discussion. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 08:58, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that substantial to me...I feel like a talk page discussion ought to be enough, but I will consider it.Lord Hyōga ♦ ♦ Tree of Ages 09:06, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Page names are always viewed as substantial changes and always need to go through the War Room per this wiki's custom. The only exception to this is when one changes a made-up name to an official canon name and provides the source. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 10:33, May 21, 2014 (UTC)