Talk:Avengers (comics)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Minor punctuation edit for clarification

I edited this statement at the end of the paragraph for 1980s, "His contributions included a revamping of the Vision, and the discovery that the children of the Scarlet Witch, and the Vision, are actually illusions." I entered a comma before and after the phrase "and the Vision" to clarify that it was the children and the Vision that were illusions and not just the children "of the Scarlet Witch and the Vision."

Which was incorrect on your part. The Vision was not, and never has been, an illusion, only their children. Edit reverted. oknazevad (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Adventures - Giant-Girl

Where is it said that Giant-Girl is Janet Van Dyne? I haven't seen her named in the book and I've read rumours that she may be Cassie Lang, or a completely new superheroine.

I'd assumed that she was a version of Cassie Lang, but it's possible that it's Janet, and I've seen other people say it's her, so maybe it's been confirmed somewhere? Kelvingreen 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Adventures The Avengers #13 confirms that it is Janet. MrDenton 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of the Avengers article

Far be it for me to pick at an old scab, so to speak, but in light of recent reports it may be necessary for us to split off the New Avengers section of this article into its own page, create a new Mighty Avengers page and declare the Avengers to be disbanded as of Avengers Disassembled.

Those of you with good memories (or those currently persuing the archives for the old (and lengthy!) discussion) will recall that I was one of the most adamant mergists. I felt they needed to be merged as New Avengers is a direct continuation of the old team, even keeping some of its most iconic members. However, after Civil War has finished, a new Mighty Avengers book will debut, and most likely the icons of Captain America and Iron Man will head the two seperate teams, possibly with a strained relationship and a rivalry at the very least between them (I know, utter fanwank, but bear with me).

With the advent of a second title, and the old primary Avengers title and its numbering now defunct, who is to say which team is the 'proper' Avengers, so to speak? There has been two Avengers books before, but they have been subtitled with names of a derogatary (if that's the right word) nature such as 'Young' and 'West Coast', and operated without the classic icons and the large numbering of the traditional Avengers title. The distinction was clear.

However, how will we distinguish between 'Mighty' and 'New'? How can we say which is the 'proper' Avengers book if Iron Man and Yellowjacket are on one team and Thor and Captain America are on the other?

I may be thinking too far ahead, or anticipating problems that may not exist when the book is launched. However, my gut feeling at this juncture is to declare the Avengers disbanded, have a heading for teams that are successors to the Avengers summarising the New, Mighty and Young Avengers, create seperate articles for these along with team rosters and seperate up the template. However I would like the community's full backing and wo/manpower before embarking on such a task. I hope this time we can come to a conclusion quicker, more smoothly and with less subborn-mindedness than last time. Let the discussion commence. :) --Jamdav86 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As you say, the 'New Avengers' (current series as of 2006) is still the same team as 'The Avengers' in much the same way that most incarnations of the Justice League (e.g. Detroit JLA) are considered as part of the primary article. That said, of course variant and breakoff groups of both the Justice League and the Avengers (e.g. West Coast Avengers or Justice League International) have recieved separate articles so your point is valid...just premature (in my opinion).

In other words, let's cross this bridge no sooner than 6 months from now when we have a better idea of what Marvel will be doing with this team (potentially "these teams"). Or even later, since I'd guess that even if there are two teams for the next couple of years, eventually it would be one again and editors can then debate which one (if either) is the 'split off' team. -Markeer 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, how will we distinguish between 'Mighty' and 'New'? How can we say which is the 'proper' Avengers book if Iron Man and Yellowjacket are on one team and Thor and Captain America are on the other?"

Er, that was exactly the case with Avengers and Avengers West Coast, you know. Iron Man and Yellowjacket were both west coast avengers Impulse 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it may be a bit premature, as I noted, but I wanted to interject before something drastic happened. So who else agrees to leave 'as is' until at least the debut of the series? --Jamdav86 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We've had two teams before, East Coast and West Coast, although they were simply two branches of the same team. We've also had a spin-off team, Force Works, but again the main team was intact. What we don't know at the moment is what the organization of the team is like. It may very well be that the Avengers remain the Avengers, with these "Mighty Avengers" being the non-sanctioned ones, or vice versa. It may also be that there are two teams of the same overall organization, as before. Ultimately, it may be useful to have "The Mighty Avengers (comic)" as an article to distinguish the comic (as opposed to the team) like we have "New Avengers (comic)" at the moment. But we just don't know. And so, yes, we should wait. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this as the same issue as the X-Men. X-Men is a good place to learn about the team, but you also have an Astonishing X-Men and the Uncanny X-Men to learn about each different incarnation of the main group. So why not leave Avengers (comics) and have a page about each different comic book series? At least when the time comes and there actually is a Mighty Avengers book. --Silver lode 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What Silver Iode said. X-Treme X-Men broke off from the main X-Men group, but they are still covered in the X-Men article. Any rift within the Avengers may very well be temporary, and leaving New Avengers and Mighty Avengers out of the main article will lead to a gap in the article if the team ever get back together again. By all means, create smaller articles for the various Avengers titles, but keep updating this page too. --Iron Ghost 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely see an analogue with X-Men or even X-Factor (comics). However, it is rather premature to split the article when we don't know anything about the new book or the two teams other than the Mighty Avengers will be taking on the bigger threats. That said, I like the idea of an overarching Avengers (comics) article chronicling the publication history of the teams, with sections dedicated to the different teams and expanded articles on these teams when needed. As a side note, this is how I see the X-Factor article working as well, treating the team name as a franchise and thus those books that use it would have a shared history. --Newt ΨΦ 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the original Avengers "team" was a corporation that ended up having two teams then one team with two bases then back to two team under the UN Charter. As far as I can tell the New Avengers never took up either of the two old charters (original charter was a New York state charter and not revokable by the USA government) thus is not the same as the more informal team of New Avengers. I think a delination of the different teams, as the first was an incorporated entity, the second (New Avengers) an unsaction unincorp. team and the third (Might Avengers): an official governmental sanction team under the SHRA and the Initiative. Spshu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC) File:Example.jpg i think that the problem was that thor was too evil and just never gave mercy now if he had given some mercy he would of been a good evil villian but he wasnt want to talk some more talk to me im willtastic92

Navbox Guidelines

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mighty Avengers

Still hasn't found it's way here. There's already promo art, details, line up and release days. And these will be real Avengers, not an offshoot such as West Coast Avengers, New Avengers, or Great Lakes Avengers.

Really not that much news, actually. Add it if you want, though. --Jamdav86 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Avengers Disassembled

Does anyone think this page may need to be disassembled soon? There's too much, and one page cannot adequately cover all of the Avengers teams. So far it's covering the Avengers, the New Avengers, the cartoon Avengers (which, let's face it, is an entirely different team), the Marvel Adventures Avengers (another completely different team), and then there's the MC2 Avengers who I don't think are even mentioned here at all, and what about the coming of the Mighty Avengers? It's too much. There are way too many Avengers teams, and to tackle them all properly, they can't be done on just one page which is getting messier and messier. Maybe we need a disambig. page listing all the many different Avengers teams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.66.227 (talk • contribs).

I think the article is fine, myself. --Jamdav86 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's managing for what is there, but there are too many Avengers teams to receive proper coverage.

Merged List of Avengers issues

I merged List of Avengers issues as there wasn't a lot of info not already in this article, but I couldn't figure out exactly where to put these bits, as I didn't read Avengers back then:

• #291-297: The team is torn apart by the manipulations of Terminatrix and her pawn, Doctor Druid, and the Avengers disband.
• #300: Captain America, in his short-lived guise as the Captain, reforms the team with only Thor continuing from the previous lineup.
• Notable issues in the "Proctor and the Gatherers Saga": #343-344, 348-349, 355-357, 359-364, 372-375.
• Avengers: The Crossing, Avengers: Timeslide and #390-395: "The Crossing": Iron Man betrays the Avengers.

Have at it, folks. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Avengers events in issue 1 and 2

The events did not happen as stated, that is why I am editting the article...factual errors. Please stop deleting these changes wholesale. If there is some content problem I am glad to fix it, but simply delting facts to replace them with an innacurate synopsis, made for brevities sake, is a mistake.

ibnfrey midnight central time (GMT -7), 10/17/06

Further, I was in the middle of adding information when this thing apparently kicked in and now it says vandalism next to the change. I find that insulting, please remove that.

Excuse me, but I feel I am entitled to the same vigilance my submittion was treated with. If you can delete it without discussion and do whatever had made it not accept changes, you should be around to discuss the action. I have gone to your page and posted as well as posting here, where I feel you should've posted if you were going to delete corrections. It said explicitly that submittions are welcomed and this sort of thing would not be done when I joined.

ibnfrey 12:22am central time (GMT -7), 10/17/06

Pardon me, but I was in the midst of writing this response when you started complaining about why I wasn't here. Responses take time. Also, I explained precisely why I was reverting in the edit summary.

The events happened exactly as stated. Loki did trick the Hulk into doing his bidding (not that Loki ordered him to do anything, but certainly Loki wanted the Hulk to destroy that tresle and be declared a menace). The call for help was diverted to Thor - that it was intende for the FF is an extraneous detail, and not really the point. The Hulk did quit becaus he found out how they feared him - the Space Phantom, is once again, extra detail, and the Avengers' efforts to contain him, most importantly, led to the resurrection of Captain America; the detours on the way aren't as important.

I've added a few brief words to try and clarify some points, but really, all the stuff you added was too much information for the purposes of this article. It could have been done much more concisely. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I was in the midst of trying to clean it up and more importantly make it more consise when this started happening; it is difficult to see how something impacts a larger article without seeing it in relation to it, at least for me. I did not realize why it was not working, but thought perhaps it was because I had gone back to try to edit and messed it up, that is why I was resubmitting it.

The "doing his bidding" part is misleading and unecessarily non-specific.

The Hulk quit because he was suprised at their (perceived by him) hatred of him, not fear (fear is a POV, to be honest); this reaction is important to understanding the Hulk as more than a cardboard brute who reacts but does not think or feel. Even if the "fear" of his unstable personality thing can be argued as the Avengers underlying motivation in making the comments they made (POV), this is not the cause of the Hulks departure. Hulk clearly states his motivation: "I never suspected how much each of you HATES (bold in source) me, deep down! I could tell by the way you fought me...by the remarks you made." This was in response to comments like "Quiet you brainless gargoyle!" (Iron Man). Hulk was upset, even hurt. This side of Hulk was more evident in later issues of Defenders, but rang clear as a bell here, perhaps for the first time.

Furthermore, the Hulk quest was the arching theme over the entire Avengers early history. They ran into the FF, spiderman, xmen, dr strange and the Defenders (among others) during it at later dates, I'm not speaking of issue #2. Probably the best comic Marvel ever produced is FF #25 in which Hulk fights Thing for basically the entire mag, but which, more germane, leads into a crossover with the Avengers and includes Dr Strange in the action. In an early Spiderman Annual, I forget which one offhand, it again is the theme when Spiderman must capture Hulk for the Avengers to gain membership. This theme was carried for many years across all of Marvel...always the Avengers responsible...always the founding members knowing their partial fault in the matter. To not acknowledge it, at least in passing, is to minimize the series beyond recognition.

All that said, I'm sorry for my response to seeing what I posted being called valdalism by a robot set to call it that. It did offend me and I got short, should have been more patient to see if you were going to respond and I apologize.

I'm not denying any of that, but in the end we're not talking about the Hulk, nor his relationship with the Avengers. We're talking about the impact of that within the larger subset of 40 years of Avengers history, which, to be honest, is really quite minimal. You have to think to yourself what the article is trying to accomplish, an what audience it's being written for. It's not being written for the fan who wants to devour every aspect and nuance of the Avengers. It's for the general reader who doesn't know anything and wants to get a general idea. Yes, the strokes are broad, yes, stuff gets lost in the cracks. Do we talk about Jarvis and his importance to Avengers cohesion as retconned in by "To Serve No More!" in Avengers #280? Do we talk about Cap's ongoing feud against Zemo in the first 10 or so issues of Avengers? Do we mention the entire Wonder Man/Grim Reaper/Vision triangle? No, because we're talking about major beats in the history of the Avengers when we do an overview. It's unfortunate, perhaps, but stuff like that doesn't always belong in a general article. It's not enough to add - we have to ask ourselves what this is for and whether it truly accomplishes the goals set out for it, or will it simply make people's eyes glaze over. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not mention anything as tangential as the things you mention. Did you read Silver Age Marvel comics? I have read very nearly every issue of every title Marvel came out with (I'm talking dirt and bones stuff like Dazzler, Spider Woman and yes, Eternals) until the mid-eighties because the local comic shop was owned by a friend of my sisters. There is no way to be familiar with the first 20 years of the Avengers and to believe that the Avengers one constant theme over their entire history is somehow not noteworthy. The theme appeared in more issues than many individual Avengers and was the in-world reason for some major crossovers back when they weren't that common.

Further, the actuality of Hulk leaving because of Avenger hatred (as perceived by him) is the only reason anyone might come to the correct conclusion that the Avengers felt responsible because of their own actions, not only the Hulks. Any omittion of that nuance means that any reader will necessarily assume the Avengers were out to capture the Hulk for the sake of capturing a monster and that his Avengers membership was the ancilliary reason for their stated responsibility. That is completely incorrect and thus is not a suitable abridgement.

Moreover, this (wikipedia) is a source document used in many scholarly pursuits, any innaccuracy or embellishment is unacceptable.

Thank you for your consideration.

As you may or may not have noticed, I added "hatred" to the sentence in addition to fear. And not that I have to prove my bona fides, but I've been reading comic books for 33 years now, and my collection goes way back into the Silver Age, not to mention that I've read every single Avengers comic ever published up to Avengers #500 (the recent ones have been sporadic because well, I hate the writing). So... yes, I know my Avengers history, and no, the search for the Hulk was hardly the one constant theme throughout their history - in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any mention of it outside the issues where the Hulk actually appears. They kind of forgot about the Hulk for years after Cap's Kooky Quartet did their perfunctory attempt to track him down in Avengers #17. To say that it was the one constant theme is a gross exaggeration, compared with, again, 40 years of Avengers history. But this isn't about comparing whose Avengers knowledge is greater. The point, as you say, is accuracy, and no - I don't think the article as it stands concerning these events is inaccurate. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I am sorry, but I and the history of the Avengers disagree. The Hulk theme does appear in more issues than many Avengers, including ones listed in the article. It also appears in far more issues than most of the villains listed. There is no justification for deleting it as it is more germane than most of the material listed, especially the more recent events, which seem to get more in-depth as the article goes on. It is fine that you do not appreciate the many appearances of this theme or it's repercusions even today, but that is your POV and does not mean that it is not important or that anyone reading on the topic should have it omitted before they see it. I have established it's importance and relevance, which should be a given to any Avengers fan, thus I expect to see it put back.

The fact is, it is the only reoccuring theme that runs that long in Avengers. You argue that it's first repercussion on the Marvel universe (finding Cap) is key and a milestone, but that it's cause and the theme which lived beyond it and is referenced nearly every time the Hulk appears in conjunction with any original Avenger is not even allowed to be mentioned. The responsibility referenced even today is deep because of their part in making the Hulk quit, not simply because of coincidence of him having been on the team.

This theme is a given part of Avengers history and was the driving force behind multiple crossovers, Spiderman not joining the Avengers, Dr Strange meeting the Hulk (Defenders), the Avengers meeting the Fantastic Four, Hulk appearing in Tales to Astonish, which led to his appearing regularly in that mag, etc, etc on to today. It appeared in at numerous titles over the entire run of Marvel. There is no way to argue that it was "minimal" as you state; quite the contrary it is the single most significant theme in Marvel during the early years.

Also, my asking wether you read Silver Age Marvel was a legitimate question, having nothing to do with implying anything about you. I asked because I have never met anyone who had read most of the Silver Age stuff and would try to say that the Avengers looking for the Hulk was "minimal". That is why I mentioned that I had read them, not to say anything about you.

It is minimal as compared to the rest of 40 years of Avengers history, i.e. it's not any more important than plenty of other storylines and themes throughout the years: Wonder Man, Ultron, the Vision's quest for humanity, the Masters of Evil, etc. Let's agree to disagree on this: bottom line, while it may be significant as regards the Hulk and the wider Marvel Universe or his interactions with multiple characters, it's not more notable than anything else in the context of the Avengers as a team. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that this is not as notable as the various short comic runs referenced in the same article? Very few of those had any repercussions beyond the next few issues; the Hulk-Avengers thing has been going on the entire time Marvel has been printing Avengers comics. We are talking about the inherently Avengers-related cause of Hulk quitting the Avengers, Hulk meeting Dr Strange (Defenders) while fighting the Avengers, Hulk appearing in Tales to Astonish (which began in a crossover with Giant-Man and the Wasp), Cap coming back and joining the Avengers, the Avengers meeting the Fantastic Four, Spiderman not joining the Avengers and most of the best fight mags Marvel has put out (Face front true believer! FF #25 and Journey Into Mystery #112 are not for the faint of heart.). It is even referenced on marvelreference.com as one of the reasons the Avengers were willing to have 3 reformed villains replace them in issue #16, saying Iron Man held hopes that the Avengers accepting them and help with further reforming might make up for the teams failure with the Hulk. It is much more noteworthy in the grand scheme than most of the runs listed in the article and it deserves acknowledgement as such.

I'm not saying it's not as notable. I'm saying it's not anymore notable. And it's already mentioned. Get a third opinion if you want, I've pretty much said all I have to say on this matter. All you've talked about is comics other than the team. And after issue #16? They went to look for the Hulk in #17 and then... when's the next mention again? Years and years. And out of 40 years of history and ove 500 issues how often is it mentioned or a factor in anything? Give the specifics, if you want. I'm getting quite tired of this conversation as it appears we are talking at cross purposes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't in the forefront during the Cap+3 years is because none of those members were involved in the incident as should be obvious. Even at that, it still played a part in their joining in the first place as stated by Marvel, not me. Further, as soon as Giant-Man got back in the comic, he bagan talking about the Hulk and finding him and maybe even getting him to rejoin the team. And, as you say, even that earlier team went to find the Hulk.

I don't believe we are at cross purposes, read what you have written. You haven't referenced what I have written but have decided ahead of time that I am incorrect and have tried to ignore the facts I am presenting..."We are talking about the inherently Avengers-related cause of Hulk quitting the Avengers, Hulk meeting Dr Strange (Defenders) while fighting the Avengers, Hulk appearing in Tales to Astonish (which began in a crossover with Giant-Man and the Wasp), Cap coming back and joining the Avengers, the Avengers meeting the Fantastic Four, Spiderman not joining the Avengers and most of the best fight mags Marvel has put out (Face front true believer! FF #25 and Journey Into Mystery #112 are not for the faint of heart.)." There is no way to argue that I have only spoken of other comics.

Further, every time the Avengers mention their "responsibility" for the Hulk in any Avengers comics or comic with an Avenger in it, they are referencing this very theme. There have been so many such references made that there is no way to argue that one is truly moved to believe it isn't important enough to allow it to be referred to. I have been submitting for quite some time and aI have never had to go to a 3rd party, but it is ridiculous of you to try to say you should have the right to delete good content just because you are not personally aware of it's significance and then refuse to acknowledge what is said in it's defense. This site belongs to accuracy, not to your POV.

I completely dispute that the number of Avenger issues that do mention the Hulk as a responsibility as compared to the number of others that don't are in any way more significant. List them. :At best, I will concede that this was a recurring theme in the early years of the team, nothing more. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to dispute. The comic only happens one way. The Hulk does leave because of the Avengers actions. They do realize this and feel responsible because they knew they were partly responsible in making him want to leave. All of this is explicitly stated by the said characters. The respsonsibility Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man and even Wasp have referenced comes from their responsibility in not even giving the Hulk a chance; that is why it is nearly always these characters, along with Cap who takes responsibility for everyone God bless 'im, who speak of the given responsibility.

Even if you only consider the early years and completely omit the source of the Avengers responsibility (which is at the core of our differences here) and consider it a storyline that only included the earliest issues (before #16) it directly appears in and crosses over into, it is still a 6 comic run without including all the cameo issues, which is more than long enough to be considered among the ones in the article. It would also still include Hulk meeting Dr Strange while fighting the Avengers, the Avengers meeting the Fantastic Four, Hulk quitting the Avengers, the Avengers finding Cap and Spiderman not joining the Avengers. Until post-Crisis (DC) continuity upheavals, there simply wasn't any other arc which did so much to the Marvel Universe. Nowadays every hero dies and is reborn in the same issue, but back then the major players didn't get moved by anything but a mountain.

I just noticed I made a couple mistakes, the first story was a 7 issue run, I forgot that JIM #112 (Thors mag, an Avenger, with an Avengers story in it) was a big part of the Avengers #3 story and the Doc Strange meeting was later.

5:07am central (GMT -7) 10/17/06

Black Panther was a regular for ages, was the only guy anyone in the world would've considered Caps replacement (Hawkeye did despite saying no one could replace him first), built a lot of Hawkeyes arrows and all of the Quinjets, among other Avengo-centric things.

I think the fact that Black Widow and Black Knight are mentioned, but Black Panther isn't, speaks pretty clearly that this page is not definitive and needs editing by someone who cares enough about the material to be bothered by such inaccurate portrayals of the significant events contained in the relevent issues.

5:19am central (GMT -7) 10/17/06

Have you removed the restriction on my posting that you wrongly placed there during my editting of my changes? Have you removed whatever references to vandalism which were caused by you deleting my edits while I was working on them? It explicitly stated when I joined that people were not to be restricted from contributing as well as the fact that I should've been allowed to finish my edits and trim them down myself before you delete them out-of-hand. Can I go back and make the changes I added or are you just going to keep adding changes I made as if you contributed them? There is no arguing that these changes were not made by myself.

You have walked the bridge of trying to prove me wrong based on your opinion of the matters at hand instead of accepting anything I said as even possible. The source says "HATE" (bold in source), it does not say fear at all; thus fear is inaccurate, but you still portray my addition as incorrect when the source document very clearly states that I am not. I referenced the issues, but instead of weighing the fact that it is more relevant than most of what is listed in the article, you made the ridiculous demand that I post every issue in which the founding Avengers mention their responsibility for the Hulk. I continually referenced it's unparalleled (in early Marvel) impact on the Marvel universe, but you say you are willing to concede only such-and-such...that is your POV and you do not have any right to delete content you cannot dispute based on it.

I have made a number of changes to the Avengers article and it needs a number more and I'd like to get to work on fixing such ridicularities as Black Widow (who was rarely even seen for the first 250 issues of the mag) being mentioned multiple times while Black Panther, a key character during those same many years is completely omitted. You have not given a single reason for my changes to be excluded and have in fact made most of the content changes I made now yourself. Obviously the content was accurate and appropriate and I feel I should be the one to add it as I was the one who added it.

1:19pm central (GMT -7) 10/17/06

Lead Section

Tidied up the introduction and removed some verbose and out of place text. The article needs to be more succinct. At present, it is too long.

Asgardian 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

However, cutting out 95% of the lead section on a article this size didn't help. Due to the length of time the Avengers have been published, compared to other superhero teams I think the article size is reasonable. Grey Shadow 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is actally not very well written and tends to ramble. The goverment section is hard to read and not really relevant to an introduction about a super team. Keep it tight and focus on what is important.

Asgardian 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, however WP:Lead requires the lead of an article to encapsulate the article; so that it could stand on its own as an overview of the subject. The one sentence lead does not accomplish that. Grey Shadow 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider editing the first sentence to be unambiguous and encompassing of the subject? This could also help address the article's current flag for in-universe language. Currently it reads, "The Avengers is a team of superheroes, appearing in magazines published by Marvel Comics."

There is no team of superheroes, there is only an intellectual property of Marvel that has been cross-media authored into several formats. The plot and storyline of the property may be noted for the recurring depiction of groups of super-powered individuals cooperating in heroic adventures. (add a real artist/writer/literary critic quote here as ref) The property was introduced in comic format in (date) and Marvel's development of the property has expanded into books, movies, audio works and merchandising.

Would we want anyone to think that "the Avengers" are real, since real teams do have comics (i.e. The Harlem Globetrotters) or that the subjects of the article are defined as only appearing in the magazines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.80.46 (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

New Version

OK...are some fairly extensive work I've trimmed the article back to an acceptable length. Removed a great deal of the "tell the story" passages and just relayed the gist; added some more striking images and changed the tense to the present. Next up is creating a Reference section at the end, which will remove the need for citing issues in the text. Now looking pretty sharp!

Asgardian 10:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the bold edits! With my limited grasp of the history, the new version appears to be a better one. However, I do agree with the Grey Shadow's comment above regarding the lead section. Maybe we can work on a new one? --Newt_ΨΦ 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the modified introduction into the opening synopsis and culled a few more unnecessary sentences. The article is still a tad too long, but if we remove much more it runs the risk of becoming sterile. The focus should continue to be brief mentions of major events and the changing membership. After that, the curious can use a link or buy the books!

Asgardian 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Thanks for doing the references. Added in the one on Captain America's revival as well.

Asgardian 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Grey Shadow 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And Lo There Came A Day Unlike Any Other...

Can anyone tell me when this phrase was first used as the origin of the Avengers in the comics? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. It doesn't appear in the first issue; where did it first appear? 108.7.213.217 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

infobox picture

The current picture of the New Avengers needs to go. Per the WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines, infobox pictures should be the most recognizable or well known version of a character or team. When most people think of the Avengers, they don't think of Luke Cage or Wolverine.

Does anyone have any thoughts on a more appropriate picture> I am thinking possibly Avengers #4, with Captain America. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the first 100 covers, I'd have to say #4's the best depiction of the original team in covers. I'm having difficulty finding anything better. By the way, I'm looking here for anyone else that wants to have a look. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just popped in Avengers #200 for a road test. It is very classic and features many of the Avengers commonly associated with the team. What do you think?

Asgardian 04:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• CovenantD reverted back to an image at least 3 of us feel is unacceptable. The Quesada image is small and some characters can barely be seen (eg. Sentry), and many of said characters are NOT considered to be synonomous with the Avengers, such as Wolverine (a point made by ChrisGriswold). As for Avengers #200 having a promotional banner across the top of the cover, what of it? Should all covers featuring the Spiderman/Captain America indicia on the bottom of the page be pulled as well? Or covers that featured the Thing stating the MMMS wants you? No. These little covers quirks are interesting and offer insight into what the comics of the times were like. A 14 year old who now only sees Marvel comics covers with characters in static pose shots would no doubt be very interested in seeing what a cover from over 20 years ago looked like. Finally, the Avengers #200 cover also features many of the classic Avengers, who are commonly associated with the team. The top banner does not impede the view of the title or the characters.

Asgardian 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply removed an image you place as a "road test". It failed. CovenantD 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• That is your opinion, and unfortunately you have expressed it in a belligerent fashion. Furthermore, at least three people disagree with you. I will take this further as you seem to be blindly reverting.

Asgardian 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, at least three other people have said that the image you replaced needed to be changed. Nobody has expressed agreement with your substitution, and in fact offered different choices than what you arbitrarily used. Let the discussion play out or we'll end up with another Wonder Woman or Jean Grey image war. CovenantD 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I did not insert the Quesada image, and added the #200 cover AFTER others had expressed their views. The discussion has already gone against the Quesada image.

Asgardian 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this edit war. It seems that both CoventD and Asgardian are one revert away from a 3RR violation. Please discuss this and come to a reasonable consensus. -- Samuel Wantman 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so we have an idea of what's on the table:

• New Avengers #1 — 3 votes for "Don't use" (Chris Griswold, Asgardian, CovenantD)
• Avengers #200 — 1 vote for "Use" (Asguardian); 1 for "Don't use" (CovenantD)
• Avengers #4 — Proposed by Psyphics, no comments as of yet.

As far as I'm concerned, both the "New Avengers" and Avengers #200 shouldn't be used. The first looks more like it belongs to a company-wide cross-over. The second has that godawful ad. Of the three, Avengers #4 works best.

I would also suggest these are also usable:

• Avengers #151 — see galley here
• Avengers #201 — see galley here
• Avengers Annual #12 — see galley here
• Giant-Size Avengers #1 — see galley here
• Avengers vol. 3, #4 — see galley here
• Avengers vol. 3, #25
• Avengers vol. 3, #82 — see galley here

At least that gives us more to work with. — J Greb 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• All quite possible. I just resent CovenantD taking it upon himself to change the image and deciding it "failed" when no one else has even had a chance to comment. I think it's becoming evident the Quesada image is on the way out, so let's roadtest a few others. Heck, I can put Avengers #4 in there in 5 minutes if that is what the majority want. But just give people a chance to see what the images look like first.

As to covers, Vol. 1 #4 is a classic, but quite old. Iron Man, Giant Man and the Wasp now look very different. That's not a damning factor, but keep it in mind. Vol. 3 #4 is nowhere near as dramatic, but the floating heads encapsulate we're after. It's just a tad staid.

1. 151 is a possibility, as is Avengers Annual #12, although it does have a blurb about the team tackling the Inhumans. There's also #100, although it does feature an old version of Hawkeye.

Another possibility are a series of classic battle covers of the Avengers in action. Quite a few fit this bill.

Asgardian 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it from the sideline, it almost seems he chose a poor way to phrase it.

Then again an argument similar to yours can be made about you popping in the #200 cover. You unilaterally decided that was the right image to put in. Yes, others have mentioned that the Quesada image should go, but you wen for your own choice with out commenting here add seeking any form of support.

At this point I'd say either leave the image blank or the Quesada one, as painful as that may be, until this discussion has had some feed back. Right now we've got 6 pairs of eyes looking at this thread and 10 possible covers. Of those only one, the Quesada, has a majority "No", the rest have only one or two votes/comment to them. — J Greb 02:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

JGreb - good call. I was never hellbent on #200, but in the spirit of Wikipedia made a bold edit and did say that it was a roadtest, not set in stone. That's why I found CovenantD's "holier than thou" attitude to be a tad rude. He wasn't willing to be flexible. Anyway, pulling the image is fine. Vol. 3 #82 seems to fit the bill...what do you think?

Asgardian 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to stop projecting your attitudes onto my actions. CovenantD 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what you said is there for all to see and you now seem to be the "blind reverter" in the neighbourhood now. It will only attract heat. I suggest you discuss first in future.

Asgardian 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do we want an image of vol. 1, #4 with a whiter background? That one appears to be a tad off-white.

Asgardian 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One that shows the actual colors at the time of publication would be nice. I can't tell if the current one is accurate (colors weren't always what they should have been) or simply discolored by age. CovenantD 05:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What does everyone think of the Alan Davis image that was used a while back? (I think it was Avengers #38). --DrBat 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall that one. Got a link? CovenantD 03:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is, Avengers 38. I also have some Alan Davis Avengers art from some of his comic cons;

• Avengers with a White Background
• Avengers promo poster similar to the cover of Avengers #38

NeoCoronis 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the Avengers with a White Background by Alan Davis would make a good SHB pic, as it has all of the characters from Avengers vol 1,#4 (plus Vision and Quicksilver), but they are all in more current costumes, and they are all clearly visible. What do you think, my fellow Wikipedians? NeoCoronis 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the better of the two latest suggestions, but I'm not sure about using a convention promo image. CovenantD 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd much prefer it to have the title and other such information on it if it is an issue of the comic. This reinforces that it is a comic book. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's preferable, I can pull a copy of the cover of vol 3, #38. — J Greb 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the promo pic more than what is up now, this one shows the Hulk, Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver, who are all important members of the Avengers, so i say we go with at one. Also think this is something you all might be looking for [1]Phoenix741 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to say that #4 was proposed by ChrisGriswold above, not myself. That said, I do like that it is a comic book cover, thus reminding and reinforcing that the article is about a comic book. I admit it's a bit dated, but it's the best I've seen that is not promotional art, and I think that a comic book cover should be chosen over promotional art in most any case for SHBs. Remember, we are not trying to pick the best picture of the team, we're trying to pick the most representative picture/image of the subject of the article. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok there is a new picture is up, how dose everyone feel about this one?Phoenix741 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the cover of Avengers vol 1 #100. It has all of the menbers of the Avengers that we consider iconic and they are all wearing their classic costumes, except for Hawkeye, who took to wearing some kind of weird pink mini dress thing during this period. But other than Hawkeye, it's perfect. All the greatest and most important Avengers are there plus it was the first Avengers comic that I ever read, it was and still is a fantastic read. The Prime Source 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Dale

New Avengers, Busiek Era

I made it so NA is no a longer a subca of BE. Is this ok w/everyone? --DrBat 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Top Image Redux

I've put Avengers #4 back as the top image on this page. I'm not adverse to other possiblities, but a few things:

• There is no policy against using a historical image at the top of this page. As an encyclopedia, historical incarnations of the Avengers are of equal legitimacy for coverage as modern incarnations.
• The George Perez image, while it is great as a poster, does not illustrate this article well. It is barely visible on this page, and all detail bleeds together when put into the infobox. While it may be a relevent and representitive image elsewhere in the article, I'm afraid that it is too incoherent to effectively illustrate the article's topic. ~CS 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The person who keeps reverting the image has remarked that "everybody" reverts his/her edits with "no discussion". It should be pointed out to this individual that it is hard to discuss things directly with someone who has not registered a username and whose IP address keeps changing. Plenty of people have previously discussed all of these edits and should have not to repeat the same discussions every time someone stubbornly insists on screwing around with what prior consensus decided. Doczilla 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 2 smallish items...
      1) While there is a feel that the annom is the same person, the ISPAs vary. I believe there are 5 or 6 of them at this point. It may be more than one person who happen to share a similar opinion.
      2) Both the licensing info and summary for the Perez image are off. The original uploaded tagged it as "promotional" where it was actually a large size, for sale, poster. — J Greb 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa. I went away for 2 days and thought this article was locked down pretty tight. I didn't think there would be an edit war over the image, especially after the recent discussion about the current image. I agree with J. Greb. The Perez image is far too small, and the Heroes Reborn image is a murky mess, with no less than two Thors on the cover. The vol. 1, #4 image is not necesaarily the best Avengers cover ever, but encapsulates many of the elements the entry needs.

Asgardian 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected, which means that anons MUST discuss things. -- Samuel Wantman 07:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to do the same thing with Tarantula (Marvel Comics), Celestial (comics), Destroyer (Thor), Growing Man, and undoubtedly others which have undergone similar pointless edit wars. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

No CW7+ updates?

I'm surprised no ones updated with info on CW7 and the split teams. Anyone got the info? --EXV // + @ 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is on the new avengers/mighty avengers pages.Phoenix741 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image creep

Time to trim the number of pics again. I think the Korvac, Heroes Reborn and Ultron covers can go. CovenantD 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, Ultron i will agree on, but i say get rid of Avengers vol. 1, #277 cover, and keep the rest.Phoenix741 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... the Ultron seems real out of place. #277 and #347 feel like "stock" images, nice if there weren't other images and we really needed more. #70 is a fence sitter for me. Korvac should likely stay as it represents one of the bigger arcs of the `70s. The HR cover is indicative of that "event" so it makes sense to have it there. — J Greb 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I got rid of Ultron and #277. Any others? Personally I'm not too keen on the coloring of #347 - it can hardly be said to be typical of the characters. CovenantD 09:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, #374 feels like a stock cover. There are better ones that can be used if the image count really needs to be this high. That being said, one of the early covers from vol. 3, with the team might be appropriate. — J Greb 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the image count the way it is, but your right 347 does not feel right, mabey we could replace it with something. I do think that number 500 should be up somewhere.Phoenix741 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do have #400 available, thanks to User:Asgardian. You can see it here. Not one I would choose (the heroes only occupy about half the image, and you'd have to put it at about 300px to see anything), but if you guys like it... I think we can assume that Asgardian has already expressed approval of it. CovenantD 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, the crease in the center annoys me(my personal view). I say 500 cause that is the begining of the end of the "classic" avengers.Phoenix741 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

#400 is gone. Replaced with #314, which is actually one of the very few decent covers from the 1990's. Most have terrible layouts and are very cluttered. With the revolting Heroes Reborn cover out, it is under control. There still needs to be a cover for the Perez era...but if not Ultron then #4. Must be striking.

Asgardian 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Reborn needs to be in there. It is one of the bigger events in avengers hitory. It is a big deal and it should have a picture.Phoenix741 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's horrible, but I agree. -Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Horrible cover, or horrible that you have to agree with me 8-P. If you want i can do some searching on the net to find a better cover for the Heroes Reborn.Phoenix741 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... #277 replaced with #200, which is very 80's. I think the decades up to the modern age each need a cover. With a Perez cover (#200), we can justify not having a cover for the vol. 3 run. That said, still unhappy about the Liefield cover. But, what to do? The art and writing were terrible. If it wasn't POV I'd retitle that section "The Fiasco Era." I may replace that particular cover as it is very cluttered and having two Thors on the cover is only confusing to a new reader.

Asgardian 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One per decade? I don't agree with an arbitrary number based on the passage of time. If there was a period of time when nothing remarkable happened then it shouldn't be covered. CovenantD 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree with CovenantD, that pulls the number up to what... 5 for the decades, +1 for the `90s (2 series change), +2 for the `00s (1 series change, 2 spin-"on goings") +1 (animated in other media), +1 down the road (possible live action movie)... that's 9 now, 10 later, without the 'box image. That amounts to overkill.
2. The current HR cover is by Michael Ryan and is from after Liefied's half of HR fell apart and he was replaced. It's also one of the only 2, IMO, usable covers from the series.

— J Greb 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what images are used. For example, the use of #200 negates the need for a later cover. The initial cover is very important, and a cover from the truly significant periods are a must (60's-70's). The Squadron Sinister and Korvac covers are good as they represent milestones. After that...meh. And yes, it is Paul Ryan but still a mess. Bleh.

203.46.189.91 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't like the #200 for three reasons. 1) 200, big as life, right in the center, dominating the image. 2) Toys-R-Us advertising across the top. One would be bad enough, both take away too much from what should be the focus of the pic, the art style and major turning points of the publication. 3) As it is now, it throws off the balance of the placement and spacing of the images. And I really wish you wouldn't go adding new images without discussion when there's an active thread on the talk page. CovenantD 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The contrast between the 80's and 90's is now quite good. As for #200, it is classic 80's and is representative of the period, just as the horrid Galactic Storm issues - complete with top banner - symbolise the 90's.

Asgardian 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Major point: Are you saying that the 2 covers are indicative of the Avengers, team and stories, for those decades, of Marvel comics off the period, or comics in general? — J Greb 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

#200 is a nice time capsule as it reflects both the Avengers and the typical Marvel comic of the day. The fact that there is a 200 in the middle of the cover is relevant here because Marvel used that style in that period. Another good example is Spider-Man: there were many, many issues from the same period with sentences (often curved around characters etc.) and the like splashed across the middle of covers. Yes, it seems crass now in this age of computer-generated posing shots, but it reflected the period, just as the aforementioned "posing" shots reflect NOW. The same applies to the banner across the top of the cover - Marvel did this with several competitions and and it would undoubtably be of interest to a new reader who may not realise that competition promotion once occurred on the cover.

As for the Avengers...it's a perfect fit. A Perez cover - considered by many to be the definative Avengers artist - from the relevant period with a group shot of the "classic team", which was also a style that was used both before (#100) and after (#300).

Asgardian 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about a compromise. Put #200 in place of Korvac (but down a paragraph, the one that starts "Shooter also introduced the character..."). Styles aren't that different, shows more team members, roughly the same time period. CovenantD 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

CovenanD's suggestion makes good sense, as does the portion of Asguardian's reasonings for using #200. However, I think Asgardian missed part of my point since the bulk of his reasoning seems to center around issues other than the Avengers.

The MoS guidelines for images is fairly clear: image use should be based on illustrating points in the article. In this case that means the covers should primarily be used to illustrate the various point in the Avengers history. It really doesn't matter if it also illustrates the style and mandates of the publisher at the time or the technical processes used, those are subjects of different articles. — J Greb 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Busiek Era Avengers

I think some of the words in the Busiek and Heroes Return sections need to be tweaked to reflect a NPOV. I just created an account so I didn't want to go and start changing things around with hearing everyone else's thoughts. Here are my suggestions:

• Replace the phrase "epic storyline" with "12-isssue storyline" or something along those lines.
• Get rid of "harkened back to the heyday". Maybe it could be replaced with "reflected the continuity-minded approach of the 70s and 80s"?
• The footnote pointing to Avengers Vol. 3 #1 does not fit. There were no "correction of continuity errors" in that issue. (In fact, I sort of dislike that phrase, since it's too much of a value judgement.)

DranDragore 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, "epic storyline" is a relatively NPOV term. In relation to comics, as well as some episodic television, it pops up for long arcs in an ongoing book or show. I really don't see a problem with it's use here.

As for the other two... the both do sound like fan crufft and the foot note is very, very bad. For that to stick it has to be a secondary source, not the primary.

There are also two other problems:

• There's a header that needs to be change: The Busiek Era isn't.
• Large chunks of History more appropriately belong in Publication history. That is the section to speak to creator input, editor whim, and critic and/or fan reaction.

— J Greb 20:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some good points here:

• On "epic" - have to agree with JGreb here. The term is subjective but in a comic context does provide the perfect metaphor for some stories. The Korvac Saga is a good example. It was "epic" in scope given the events of the arc. The fact too that the following issues featured quite a bit of down time and small character developments also emphasises the importance of the preceding "super mission" and how it impacted on the characters.

• "Harkened back to the heyday" is gone. It was a return to a more classic style of storytelling, but yes, it is POV. An interview quote would be good here.

• Continuity and correction of errors? Tut, tut. There are several things that get rejigged and rebooted if you look closely (eg. notice how the Wasp has changed back from insect form?) Reworded the foot note.

Asgardian 06:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just removed the comment and footnote. IIUC most of the "continuity erros" deal with the change back from "Heroes Reborn". That 13 issue series is mostly out-of-Earth-616-continuity, so vol. 3 picks up the characters up as the E-616 versions last seen in vol. 1. — J Greb 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Hawkeye's hearing, clarifying the role of characters that should never have been Avengers (eg. Moon Knight), the Squadron Supreme etc.

Asgardian 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really remember the details of Moon Knight's team status, but I have to disagree with you on insect Wasp, deaf Hawkeye, Teen Tony, and other Crossing nonsense. Those weren't continuity errors - poor decisions perhaps, but that's subjective. I'd classify Busiek's changes as reversion to status quo, not correction of continuity errors. — DranDragore 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that the changes were made to fix alterations made IN continuity.

Asgardian 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Solved the image issue by pulling the Squadron Sinister cover, as there is already a cover featured for the 1960's (being #1). This means the Korvac cover can now stay next to the 1970's text. By the by, had to flip that Avengers: Initiative image as it looks much better on the left. Too much white if out on the right.

Asgardian 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...and no one thought to look here before reaching for the keyboard...

Asgardian 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at the section where images are actually discussed, rather than the section where you announce the problem solved through unilateral action. CovenantD 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. Days ago and hardly concrete.

Asgardian 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Why are they called "the Avengers?" Who (or what) are they avenging? Did someone (Wasp, in-universe) just think it sounded cool? (It would explain why the Ultimate Marvel version is called the Ultimates instead.) I've always wondered about that and this article doesn't really answer it... RobertM525 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly how it went down. some one (I think wasp) said we need a name like the Avengers or something. And Ant-Man was like "Or nothing, Avengers is perfect"Phoenix741 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's Spidey?

I heard that Spidey was fighting alongside the Transformers, but why won't they just add him to the Avengers? I think that he would make a good teammate.

......... He is an avenger.....Phoenix741 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Looks like we need a NEW Top Image?

Any Suggestions?Phoenix741 00:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

any at all??Phoenix741 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... re-upload the image with a proper FUR... (done) - J Greb 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not a fan of this one, due to the lack of Hawkeye.Phoenix741 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an image. Image:Avengersvariant_lo.jpg Like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelaststand3 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 July 2007

1st: Please sign your posts.

2nd: Placing non-free images for show anywhere but article space is a FUR violation. PLease use the link format as it's been edited to to link for discusion purposes.

3rd: The image needs sourcing -- Where did you find it? Where was it originally published? To be blunt, it looks like someone has taken scans of various characters, clipped their bargruonds, and created a PhotoShop collage.

- J Greb 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I knwo what it is, it is varient covers, for the New and Mighty Avengers, i remeber seeing it somewhere at marvel.com, and no that won't work, cause there is no cap, or thor, or Hawkeye, or vision, and so on and so on.Phoenix741 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New avengers sketch.jpg

Image:New avengers sketch.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Paperback prose

In the late 1970s, Marvel licensed prose rights to Pocket Books. I had the Dr. Strange novel, and remember seeing many other volumes, but the only one I specifically and clearly recall was a short-story collection. Amazon.com lists it[2] as Stan Lee Presents: The Marvel Superheroes Featuring The Hulk, The Avengers, The X-Men, and Daredevil, edited by Len Wein and Marv Wolfman. I strongly suspect that there was an Avengers novel, as well. These need to be mentioned in each respective character or team's article, but I don't have enough information about these publications to go beyond what little I've already done. I'm not even adding the stories from that collection, because I don't know the individual writers. Can somebody help? Ted Watson (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous IP has at last expanded on the Avengers appearances in this line, at least in this article. Thank you, whoever you are. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

the timeline is divided by subhead into decades - 1970s, etc. but there is no label for the 2000s decade, so i can't tell when the 2000s begin. if anyone knows, please add the subhead in the appropriate place. --Kiphinton (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Readded older introduction as latest version had paragraph in point form, inappropriate info for start and contained POV. Swapped #175 for #176 as #175 is now in the Korvac article, and culled the extra image at bottom (that can go in NA article). Corrected references and trimmed Film as first claim now outdated and full of POV.

Asgardian (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quibbles and partial reverts:

• Consistency in issue listing: The general format used is Title vol., issue (cover date). Parentheses around the vol is optional, as is the inclusion of "vol. 1".
• Series title: As stated many, many times - the full, correct title of vol 1 is "The Avengers". With the definite article having been dropped in later volumes.
• Debut: That was vol 1, right?
• Refs used for multiple cites: The structure allows for this, please leave such groupings as is. If you are moving/editing such a cite, please try to retain the "name=" syntax if not reducing it down to one use.
• {{main}} sections: While it is reasonable to remove the image, it is not reasonable to remove all text. If that is done, the link mat as well be moved to the "See also section. Call out in the body of the article need at the least an lead style paragraph to put them in context of this article's subject.
• Film: Removing cited information doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Cleaning it up though does.

Aside from that, it's good to see the lead tightened down a bit. - J Greb (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::<grumble> Only got a protion of the edits in... I try to get the rest in this evening. (Blinking connection problems...) - J Greb (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Scratch that... (sigh) - J Greb (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Asgardian, but that is not a POV but fact that three different organizations use the name Avengers. The whole point of Disassemble was to create a new team with the old name. According to the New Avengers article they kept the team a secret and used Captain America's "Champion" hero license to start the team instead of just resassuming the original organizations charter(s). Addition the team form in Mighty Avengers was done under the 50 State Initiative authority. These are clearly different organizations just using the same name. Are you going to call all disambig. tags POV and calling it "Replaced vandalised text (no point form or POV);"? Spshu (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)