This HTML5 document contains 6 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

PrefixNamespace IRI
n3http://dbkwik.webdatacommons.org/ontology/
n7http://dbkwik.webdatacommons.org/resource/K13CHN0f3-Y92MtFUcbkAQ==
n4http://dbkwik.webdatacommons.org/avatar/property/
n2http://dbkwik.webdatacommons.org/resource/j8tsviVoxL1YzO8dYJ7Viw==
n5http://dbkwik.webdatacommons.org/resource/vh5CELhUKYhchE01MHyOMw==
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n6http://dbkwik.webdatacommons.org/resource/GAKiAE0oHlIknFYdTGY0_Q==
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
Subject Item
n2:
rdfs:label
Avatar Wiki:War Room/Renaming 'Sealguana' page
rdfs:comment
__NOWYSIWYG__ In the Art of the Animated series, on page 83 the image of the sealguana is captioned as, "One of Bryan's favorites, the iguana-seal". There is a redirect, which leads me to wonder whether or not there is another source that contradicts this one , however it isn't cited in the articles reference list. I think this article should be renamed to reflect the AAS source. FruipyLoops File:Toph-DoBS-2.gif 12:46, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
n4:wikiPageUsesTemplate
n5: n6: n7:
n3:abstract
__NOWYSIWYG__ In the Art of the Animated series, on page 83 the image of the sealguana is captioned as, "One of Bryan's favorites, the iguana-seal". There is a redirect, which leads me to wonder whether or not there is another source that contradicts this one , however it isn't cited in the articles reference list. I think this article should be renamed to reflect the AAS source. FruipyLoops File:Toph-DoBS-2.gif 12:46, September 17, 2013 (UTC) The history of the redirect says that it was moved to sealguana as it is named as such on the old nick.com site. 12:48, September 17, 2013 (UTC) Which source is more reliable? The AAS, or the Nick site? I'm personally more inclined to go with the AAS book. FruipyLoops File:Toph-DoBS-2.gif 12:54, September 17, 2013 (UTC) It generally seems to me that the old rule-of-thumb that print publications should be trusted over websites in most circumstances is possibly applicable here. That Nick.com website hasn't always been on the ball. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:55, September 20, 2013 (UTC)