Talk:Avengers (comics)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

Your current use of 'history' on the page doesn't make sense. You're passing it off as a history of the team, which is why, in such a case, everything needs to be included in the timeline.

This sucks. The other way was much better, but you need to distinguish between 'overview' and 'Avengers'. Your 'overview' is only an overview of one of the comics! The same goes for your 'history'.

And again, New Avengers is a different title. You can tell from the fact that the old comic was called 'Avengers' and the new one is called 'New Avengers'. Whether you want to believe that they're still the Avengers or whatever, the title is under a different name, thus making a new comic, and thus, not rendering it a part of the original comic's history, just as the Ultimates isn't.

I don't really agree with some of the 16 Sep 03 16:48 changes. The fact that the Hulk wore clown make-up for part of (but not all of) the first issue seems like a trivial detail. More significantly, I don't think the Justice League was really the model for the Avengers; rather, the success of the Justice League was the inspiration for the Fantastic Four. The Avengers were simply one in a line of teams of previously-existing heroes (who trace their lineage back to the Justice Society of America). Lastly, I don't think Cap's guilt over Bucky's death was really a running theme in the series. It had a place in some of the Roy Thomas issues, but was not really a factor for the team as a whole - nor a theme for the book - for the most part.
-mhr 00:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

West Coast Avengers

Should the WCA get their own article, or at the very least, their own STB in this article? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they should get their own article (as should the various Justice League branches (especially Justice League International), FTM. If you're volunteering to do it, go ahead :) - SoM 22:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
If the Great Lakes Avengers have a page, surely the wacos deserve one. Hiding 20:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've made a start here. Sadly I dropped the book about where this synopsis ends, so I can't add anything more to the party. Hiding 21:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Size

Sorry about that. When I submitted my changes, the bottom of the page got cut off. I dont know if the article is getting too big. --DrBat 14:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. However, do stop replacing the JPG with the PNG. We've been through this before. The PNG you're putting there for the "Siege" cover just looks painfully oversaturated. --khaosworks 14:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
He's been doing that a lot... - SoM 14:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Avengers isn't the Avengers

New avengers aren't the Avengers, so why is a cover thumb of it as a (false) representation of the avengers?

  • New Avengers is the latest incarnation of the Avengers, a team that has been re-invented many, many times throughout the years by many, many different writers. Just because Wolverine's on the team that doesn't warrant a whole new page. Obviously, once the team's been around a couple more years, the "new" part will be dropped--steveg99

There is a New Avengers article, correctly, since they're different teams on different books, with different members.

  • The membership of the Avengers was hardly consistent before Bendis started writing the team. And considering Cap and Iron Man are still in the group, it's also hardly as if there's no tie whatsoever to those previous incarnations--steveg99

Someone should really remove the New Avengers covers from this section, there's already a section for it, it's the New Avengers section.

No there is not a NA article (well, not for the comic). Correctly. The New Avengers comic features a team known as the Avengers. This article is on the team. Two plus two is four. - SoM 23:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
NA section: The_New_Avengers_(comic)
Avengers = Avengers
New Avengers = New Avengers
Different teams, different books, different fans even :)
  • All things considered, not really an altogether different team, book, or fan following--steveg99
Even the creators and the story underlines that the Avengers ended (disassembled), and were restarted, as another team, on a new book with new members, new base, new mission et cetera. Justice League Europe isn't Justice league America simply because it shares "Justice League" and a few members. If the justice league deserves the dignity, why don't the Avengers? Would the great Lake Avengers or West Coast be characterized an honest representation of the Avengers? No. Then why should the "New" Avengers be.
The only excuse would be a hedonistic pursuit of absolutely the last cover gloss to be on the article, problematic, since it's factually\historically wrong.
The team was disbanded in the wake of the Onslaught saga, yet nobody questions that the team that reformed after the Heroes Return was the Avengers. The composition of the team has changed so many times, starting from the Hulk leaving, then Captain America joining, then all the original members leaving with only Cap, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver to pick up where the others left off, yet the team was still the Avengers. "The old order changeth" is one of the team's catchphrases, and has been amply demonstrated throughout the team's history. All through this, the team was still the Avengers. The new team is still called the Avengers, not the New Avengers, in the context of the Marvel Universe, the "new" just being the title of the book. --khaosworks 03:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The logic being presented here conveniently ignores all the previous "disassemblings" and "reassemblings" that have occurred over the years, even in the face of the article itself which points that out. Further, the arguement that the roster is completely different is flawed. Cap & Iron Man's are on the team, which is about as Avengery as you get without having Thor around. Moreover, if you think that in years to come, the Bendis incarnation will be more than just another footnote in a long Avengers history, you're kidding yourself--steveg99


The New Avengers are not the Avengers! They do need their own page! The current page is for the comic series. This title is now finished! Just as the Young Avengers (a completely new title) has it's own article, the New Avengers (another completely new title) deserve theirs!

When they start calling themselves the New Avengers, I'll agree. Until then, they're still the Avengers. The New Avengers is the title of the comic book, not the team. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
We don't know if they are calling themselves the new Avengers or the New Avengers
Exactly, it's a comic book series featuring a team known as the Avengers. The comic book series should have its own page! The New Avengers, a Marvel Comics comic book begun in 2004 focusing on the Avengers, a superhero team. The link brings us to the Avengers page -- so what's wrong with a page for this comic book that begun in 2004?
Because there isn't anything to write about the comic book that isn't already adequately covered here. And the New Avengers really only works in the context of the history of the book, which is what this article also covers. That's why it redirects. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
My point is that it shouldn't be adequately covered here! It an entirely different saubject/category/whatever you want to call it. Just as with the West Coast Avengers. It's a new title. The Avengers title is finished, so only information about things that happen during the run of this title should be included on this page, and then at the end, a link to the New Avengers page...
How is it completely different? Note that the West Coast Avengers were actually called the West Coast Avengers in their title. These are still the Avengers - the New Avengers is a continuation of that same organization's history. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge with NA

  • Merge New Avengers into this page. - SoM 13:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge New Avengers into this page as per my reasons above. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge New Avengers into this page.--DrBat 21:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge New Avengers is an entirely new version of the original The Avengers series. Sure, the events during The Avengers are the history of The New Avengers, but this new title should have its own page, for a more in-depth article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.46.57 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 September 2005 UTC.
  • Who's being harmed by the New Avengers page existing? Why do stubborn people have a problem with it?

Taking your idea to the extremes, then everthing should be included on the main Avengers page - every single comic series - every character even. It just doesn't work! There's too much information, sgo and make entries for everytime the title's been restarted to issue 1. Did they reboot the series and completely undo the titles entire history? No, they did not. They just added "new" to the title and added some new characters. I think the New Avengers page should be reverted back to a redirect. The info there isn't that useful and is covered by the Avengers article.--Kross 16:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Going back to respond to this comment... I'm sorry but your reasoning is lost on me here... The comic series The Avengers is made of three volumes, accounting for the #1s. The The Avengers title is no more. It's a new title: The New Avengers. Not another The Avengers #1, The NEW Avengers #1. It's not the same comic anymore, and it's not a fourth volume of The Avengers. And no offence, but who are you to decide how useful the information is? What isn't to you, may be to a lot of other people. You can't let your own opinion on the matter decide which pages should exist, and which pages shouldn't. The current brief on The Avengers page is enough to conclude the article, and I think some people aren't willing to face the fact that a page you have put work into cannot be updated beyond what is there. As a new comic - as a new topic worthy of an article, it should have its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.40.61 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 September 2005 UTC.
  • Don't Merge Not everyone is going to be happy with whatever decision is reached. The way I see it is that the The Avengers title is over, so information on the page for The Avengers should be contained there. The The New Avengers title is going to be continuing beyond what can be put into the The Avengers article without making it very long and awkward. As for the comment about the info there, it's clearly modelled exactly on the Young Avengers page, and though it's limited right now, it has space to grow - which is what Wikipedia is all about. It has more space to grow in its own page than in the The Avengers page. The New Avengers isn't The Avengers. Just as The West Coast Avengers isn't The Avengers (as for the difference in the team, a lot of people don't agree on that point, either, which is why The Wasp and Henry Pym have The Avengers in their affiliations, and Iron Man has The Avengers and The West Coast Avengers. Sure The Avengers and The New Avengers are about the same team, but the series' are different. This being my point. The New Avengers page is about the comic book started in 2004 (under a different title than The Avengers). It should have its own page for a more in-depth article. Avengers_fan 23:22, September 3, 2005
  • Merge New Avengers into this page. Personally, I'm a little tired of people going around creating different articles for every iteration of the same character/magazine. Spider-Man does not need articles for Spectacular Spider-Man or Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, what is there to say about them that cannot be covered in the main article? Likewise, the New Avengers don't need a different page. It's the same team concept, working in the same circumstances. The only reason for it to have a separate page is to have detailed plot synopses for the new series - which, as the series progresses and more issues are published, turns the page into a messy text dump, especially because comics fans tend to be nitpicky about details (see Runaways (comics) or The Ultimates for examples). I prefer to have three or four paragraphs detailing what the series is about, as well as major changes to the overall direction of the title, than large synopses - which in the case of The Avengers, still works in the main article without the need to create a new one. --Pc13 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The information on the new page is limited at the moment, and as there is more information to add, what is there will be condensed and expanded. It's an entirely new comic, continuing the adventures of the team The Avengers. People who say that the current Avengers page is for the team are wrong! The page is clearly for the comic! The only thing I can think people may nitpick about is the title of the New Avengers page. If it was changed from New Avengers to The New Avengers, then no one can have a problem with it! It's clearly a page about a comic title, which (and I know a lot of you don't want to hear this) is not The Avengers. It's The NEW Avengers! Sorry, but people are just going to have to get used to this. Sooner or later, this comic title will be needing its own page -- so what's wrong with sooner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avengers_fan (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 September 2005 UTC.

Point the First: The title of this comic series is called The New Avengers, not The Avengers. Two entirely different comic series. Whether you want to believe it or now, this is a fact!

Point the Second: Jessica Drew: I GOT FIRED FROM MY S.H.I.E.L.D. POST AND ASKED TO BE A NEW AVENGER ALL IN ONE DAY. (The New Avengers #3) Okay, so it's all written in upper case. Is she saying "a new Avenger" or is she saying "a New Avenger"? Well, let's face it. If it was the first, then she wouldn't have said new Avenger at all. She'd have said "a new member of the Avengers", or similar, or forgotten the new altogether and said "an Avenger". Apologies for those who don't agree - but it's just common sense. Not happy that Jessica Drew knows what she's talking about? Fine! Captain America: JESSICA DREW. WELCOME TO THE NEW AVENGERS. YOU'RE JUST IN TIME. (The New Avengers #4) So what? Captain America doesn't know what he's calling his own team now? THE NEW AVENGERS! Not the new team of Avengers. Not the new line-up. Nothing like that. He says in plain English: WELCOME TO THE NEW AVENGERS. I repeat again: THE NEW AVENGERS.

So, we have a new comic called The New Avengers, and a team refering to themselves as THE NEW AVENGERS... What's the problem! The proof is all there! The New Avengers should have its own page. Case Closed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avengers fan (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 September 2005 UTC.

Bendis is educated. He loves doing this kind of stuff -- splitting the internet in half, or in our case, splitting Avengers fans in half, the pro-merge and the anti-merge. He wouldn't make Captin America say "New Avengers Assemble!" or "Welcome, new member of the Avengers." as it's easier saying, "Welcome new Avenger." It's called brevity, it makes dialogues sound better. --Windspinner 06:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)windspinner
So, by your logic, Captain America would say "Avengers Assemble!" even if his team was called The New Avengers - which he has called them. Note: He hasn't called the group The Avengers. It's not a new line-up of The Avengers. The group is called The New Avengers... Brevity... Thank you.
No, his team's name is not "New Avengers", it's still The Avengers. He just keeps using New as an adjective. The New Avengers is just a phase in Avengers' history, and you are positively insane about all this New Avengers being a different team.
While I don't appreciate the personal attack on my sanity, we don't actually know which it is. THE NEW AVENGERS can mean the new Avengers or the New Avengers. The only thing I can lean on is that I've been studying English Language for years, and speaking it for as long as I can remember and the context in which the words have been used would suggest that the team is called The New Avengers.
No, "new" there is simply is an adjective, a word that qualifies nouns. The New Avengers is not a new team, it's just a new comic, the same way that Astonishing X-Men and Uncanny X-Men are the same team featuring, sometimes, different characters. --Windspinner 02:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)windspinner
  • Merge New Avengers into this page. I think what we could do is provide a subheading for the New Avengers after the The 2000s heading. It's altogether redundant and confusing if we don't do it that way. I mean, this might be a different title, but it is the same team, same spirit, same leader, same financier, same enjoyable stories, different line-up. Just look at the Excalibur they got totally revamped, but look, they're on the same page with the "Old Excalibur". Yeah, I got it, the comic has the same title, but if you're reason for dis-merging is the difference of the lineup, fans and stuff, then this makes no sense. I say merge it! --Windspinner 23:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)windspinner
  • Merge. -Sean Curtin 02:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry to nitpick, Sean, but which page to merge into which? I think I know what you mean, but let's be sure. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry. Merge New Avengers into the main Avengers article. -Sean Curtin 06:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

As has been said - the reasons for keeping the pages seperate are that the comic is no longer The Avengers. It is not another The Avengers #1. It's The New Avengers #1. And the team are refering to themselves as THE NEW AVENGERS. Tony Stark: WE HAVE PUT A NEW AVENGERS TEAM TOGETHER. A New Avengers team... Not.. We've reformed the Avengers... The facts speak for themselves, and based on the facts, this new title should have its own article. Yes, there should be a brief on the Avengers page, but it should not be as covered in-depth as the New Avengers article should be. Based on the facts, these two different comic titles warrant seperate pages. The only thing endangering this is peoples' own personal opinions, which should not be influencing the decision. It's Wikipedia - not your own personal fan-club, and the fact of the matter is that these are two different topics. You may as well merge cats and dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.91.55 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 September 2005 UTC.

And, to use thine own quote "*A new Avengers team". Not "The". "A" :) Been nw Avengers teams going back to Avengers v1 #16, and taking in Av v1 #93 (team had disbanded), Av v1 #205, Av v1 #300 (team had disbanded), Av v3 #1 (team had disbanded), Av v3 #27, etc, etc :). And that's not even counting the WCA (Which also had the significant factor you missed of running concurrently rather than consecutively with other Avengers series). No ice :) - SoM 14:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
That's what I've been trying to say all along. It's obvious that Avengers_fan is a newcomer to the comic. That's great - I hope he reads back and realizes what a rich history this team has, and how fantastic it used to be in its heyday. And perhaps once he does so, he'll realize that the old order changeth is nothing "new". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not the 'A' and 'The' that is the issue, as SoM has tried to make it. It's the difference between a new Avengers team and a New Avengers team, just as they may have said WE HAVE PUT AN AVENGERS TEAM TOGETHER or WE HAVE PUT AN X-MEN TEAM TOGETHER. It's either New Avengers or new Avengers, and there's no way to be certain. The only thing that is entirely certain beyond any doubt that there is a new comic series called The New Avengers, and just as every other comic series, regardless of characters has its own page, this comic should have its own, too.

-- Just adding a little comment here -- It's not The Avengers. It's The New Avengers. "The old order changeth" is a little redundant here. The title of the comic is completely new. It's more like "The new order cometh"! - Avengers fan 17:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


The fact of the matter is that no one knows if it's New Avengers or new Avengers. The team do refer to themselves as the New Avengers. Just take Jessica Drew's quote: ...ASKED TO BE A NEW AVENGER... This says a lot! I'm sorry, but there is no way, if the team wasn't called the New Avengers, that she would say that! It's just common sense that she would say "ASKED TO BE AN AVENGER". Whether you're willing to agree or not - I'm just going with common sense here. However the title of the comic has changed. It is no longer The Avengers. Just as The West Coast Avengers, and several variations of Spider-Man comic titles have their own pages, The New Avengers, as a comic title, regardless of characters whould have its own page, too.

Comic Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wikipedia Page:

The Avengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Avengers

The West Coast Avengers. . . . . The West Coast Avengers

The Spectacular Spider-Man . . . The Spectacular Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man . . . . . The Amazing Spider-Man

The Sensational Spider-Man . . . The Sensational Spider-Man

The New Avengers . . . . . . . . . . The New Avengers

Need I go on?

Why does this not make sense to people? The only difference is that with all of these different Spider-Man pages... He's still Spider-Man. Not only do we have The New Avengers title, but we have a new team calling themselves The New Avengers. If the comic was called The Avengers, then there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact is, that it's a different comic under a different title. What do you have against The New Avengers? The facts dictate that The New Avengers is deserving of its own page. The pages should be left as they currently are - people just aren't willing to accept it.

  • Don't Merge The only actual evidence that has been brought forward is in favour of the pages remaining as they are. Whether people are happy about this or not, it's not the case. Personally, I think they should be merged, but based on this discussion and the evidence, I'm going with the non-merging. Why pick on the Avengers? If you're going to merge something, merge all those Spider-Mans. Until that happens and there is a general consensus in Wikipedia, The Avengers/The New Avengers should not be singled out and The New Avengers, as a comic series, should have its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.204.16 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 September 2005 UTC. - only two edits, both to this talk page.
    • Since you mention that, I notice that Avengers_fan (talk • contribs) has only 28 articlespace edits, on only nine pages (including this and New Avengers) - SoM 16:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • So, what? Unless you've had a username with Wikipedia forever your ideas are devalued? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I may have only had minor edits to a few pages in the very short time I've been around, but I have created pages on Captain Britain (Kelsey Leigh) and Ant-Man (Scott Lang), and I think they're very good pages - even if I do say so myself. What people have contributed to Wikipedia isn't an issue here. The issue is that if Spider-Man comics can have, like, 9 different pages, then the Avengers should have seperate pages for all of their *different* comics, and The New Avengers is a different comic.Avengers fan 17:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per SoM. Hiding talk 19:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge If there are different pages for different comics, then why should the Avengers and the New Avengers be on the same page? Can't have one rule for one and another for the rest - and it's not fair to detroy peoples' hard work because of your own personal dislike of the subject or content. (Oops didn't do that signing thing...)SweetSurrender
This is another one-day old user account. I really don't want to swing around accusations of sockpuppetry, but this is getting a bit suspicious. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by suspicious? What's suspicious? (oopsie) SweetSurrender
It's starting to look like you, Avengers_fan, and the two Energis UK anon ips, or any combination of them, are the same person. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Nope. I'm not Avengers_fan... I do love the Avengers... So I'm AN Avengers fan... - SweetSurrender

Are new members not allowed to vote on these things? SweetSurrender

I think they are. I've just created my account three days ago and I've actively discussed with people here. Old and New Avengers Mergeth! --Windspinner 04:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I have but one Wikipedia account... Somehow, I feel I should apologise to some of you that people are voicing opinions that you're not happy with... Avengers fan 07:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't Merge Someone looking for The New Avengers is not looking for information on The Avengers. 65.13.43.98 15:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm plucking this out of the current 'discussion' for some clarity:

FACT:

The comic is called The New Avengers

EXPLANATION:

Speaks for itself... Not a comic called The Avengers, a comic called The New Avengers


FACT:

The team refer to themselves as THE NEW AVENGERS

OPINION:

It's the new Avengers - The new is simply an adjective

EXPLANATION:

No. We don't know this. As said, that's simply speculation.

OPINION:

It's the New Avengers - The New is a part of this group's name

EXPLANATION:

No. We can't decipher THE NEW AVENGERS into either of these fairly, though context is in favour of the latter opinion.


FACT:

There are different pages for so many comics (eg: Spider-Man)

OPINION:

"Personally, I'm a little tired..." These pages should be merged

EXPLANATION:

The personally is just one of the problems. However, it appears to be a consensus on

Wikipedia to allow these pages - whether people personally agree that they should exist or not.

OPINION:

The New Avengers should not be singled out.

FACT:

The current page for the The Avengers comic series is in excess of the recomended 32kb limit.


OVERVIEW: Based on the facts, the Merge vote has no legs to stand on. It's peoples' opinions that are affecting the voting, and since we are Wikipedia here, shouldn't it be that FACTS that we are concerned with?

- Avengers fan 07:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't Merge. I know I'm late voting here, but that means that having one article is only winning by one vote. Personally I think that haing the New Avengers on the Avengers page is like having a major movies' sequel on that first movies' page - one is a sequel to the other and they should both get seperate pages as such. rst20xx 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're a bit late to the game. In any case, the consensus was not as close as you say, because most of them were anon and possibly sockpuppets who voted "Don't merge", and were discounted. It's not a mechanical vote. And it's not a sequel. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote?

I'm confused by Khaosworks' use of the word 'vote' on the history page. This is a vote? I thought it was a discussion... So what happens if the majority vote is wrong?

It's a vote to see what the views on the proposal to merge is. If there is a significant enough proportion of people to support a merge, then we will have established a consensus to do so. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
"So what happens if the majority vote is wrong?" Happens in politics a lot *resists temptation to give specific examples*. Doesn't change matters - SoM 13:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering... Who exactly decides the definition of 'significant'? - Avengers fan 18:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a discussion. But out of the discussion an agreement will be reached based on majority consensus. I just don't feel what else is there to discuss. This is the same situation we've had with Wolverine's powers description. Anyone can plainly see there is no team called New Avengers. The examples Avengers_fan pointed out actually point in favour of the team retaining their old name. As soon as a I get home, I'll check to see if those sentences were written in regular typeface. - Pc13 18:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the majority view that has emerged over the last 5 days is to merge. Shall someone do it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Um... No... Maybe when the discussion is over... Perhaps actual discussion would be useful. 5 non-merges and 7 merges is in no way a significant enough proportion to delete the page! Avengers fan 16:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what there is to discuss, or whether further discussion would be fruitful. I think the two positions are pretty clear. The pro-merge position is that the "new" Avengers is an extension of the original Avengers team history and is not actually named the New Avengers in-story. The anti-merge position is that the New Avengers is a completely new team and should have its own entry. I know which one I agree with. And I have some reservations about counting non-merge votes from anon ips whose only contributions seem to be this vote. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
"OVERVIEW: Based on the facts, the Merge vote has no legs to stand on. It's peoples' opinions that are affecting the voting, and since we are Wikipedia here, shouldn't it be that FACTS that we are concerned with?" That comment doesn't warrant some discussion? -- Avengers fan 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I know I didn't create my username as soon as I came to Wikipedia. There was no need. I used the site to gain information - not create it. If I had come across this vote back then, I would also voice my opinion - as other people here have done.
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Anon.2FNew_user_voting - SoM 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The only thing is though, that the non-merging people have given valid reasons in support of their opinions. I thought a rule on Wikipedia was that everyone is equal, and we don't know that how long a person has been contributing to Wikipedia is actually how long they've been with Wikipedia. I think the solution is to condense the The New Avengers section on the current Avengers page - and leave a brief under a THE NEW AVENGERS subheading with a link... Shouldn't the image at the top of the The Avengers page be different? Featuring a more well-known team actually present in the The Avengers title who have been around for more than 5 minutes? -- Avengers fan 10:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What the hell!?

Okay, I think some people have trouble with the concept of "Merge".

Would "incorporate" work better? "Mingle"? "Mix"? "Combine"?

Definitely going against the spirit of the vote, if not quite the letter... - SoM 23:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Lmao - I didn't think that previous page looked quite right! While I think the section for The New Avengers needs to be more in-depth, (without going way O.T.T!) shouldn't it also be at the top of the page? It's the present, and then the history should follow after it. At the moment, my work has just been deleted and khaosworks has left what he feels is appropriate, which I feel is unfair. The information exists just as the The Young Avengers info. does, so what is the cause for the deletion? Maybe it would be more acceptable to have an entire page for each storyline in the series if you don't want it to be on this page? I also think that a clear point needs to be made that no one, in fact knows the name of the new group. All over Wikipedia it's different, so I think that needs to be clarified here. (ie: If you look at Jessica Drew's page she's a member of the New Avengers.) -- Avengers fan I'd just like to ask this question again, maybe nobody saw it: Shouldn't the image at the top of the be different? Featuring a more well-known team actually present in the The Avengers title who have been around for more than 5 minutes? And a team that we actually KNOW to be called the Avengers? -- Avengers fan

  • shouldn't it also be at the top of the page? It's the present, and then the history should follow after it.

No, it should be last, since it's the most recent. Wikipedia articles go in chronological order.

And what, exactly, other than the maybe-possibly-but-probably-not addition of one word in the title distinguishes this from the "old" team?

  • The Avengers were disbanded.

As they were in the Kree-Skrull War, Avengers #298-300, post-Onslaught (for a year in continuity, rather than the six months between AFinale and NA1) and the couple of other occasions I'm no doubt forgetting.

  • They don't live in the mansion

The mansion was destroyed for a hundred or so issues between the Under Seige story and Avengers v1 #375.

  • They've got a different lineup

Less drastic than some roster changes, since they've got two full carry-overs. And they apparently consider the "Old Avengers" prior members per-House of M

  • There's a "New" in the title

So the X-Men became the "New X-Men" between NXM114 and NXM156? Or the Avengers became the "Mighty Avengers" between A v1 62 and 69? Or Spider-Man gets called the "Amazing Spider-Man" in the Daily Bugle?

They run/ran concurrently (simultaneously) with the main series. New Avengers is the main series, starring a team called the Avengers.

  • West Coast Avengers was an independent team on the otherside of the US, with different members than the main team. Young Avengers is the equilivent of the Teen Titans or Young Justice.--Kross 19:36, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jessica Drew called herself a "NEW AVENGER"

And she is a "new Avenger". This is her first time on the team.

I'm sick of this. It's a storm in a teacup to no purpose. - SoM 00:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Oh no, I wasn't intending to make you sick! That wasn't me complaining. We're merged. End of story. I was just pointing out that on Jessica Drew's page, New Avengers is listed in her affiliations. Since that link brings it to this page, I thought it should be clarified here that while speculated, the actual name of the team in The New Avengers cannot be determined, which I have done. No matter what we think it is, the fact is that it's speculation.

The The New Avengers is at the bottom, and the two main headlines are The Avengers and The New Avengers, the information being split into the two comics we're covering here. I hope no one has a problem with this. I don't see how anyone can.. -- Avengers fan


  1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Markup
  2. As long as it's split like that, it's not merged - SoM 15:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

But it is merged. If this page is supposed to be for the Avengers team, whether we assume the team in The New Avengers to be called the Avengers or not, we should be covering it through the two different comics. As The New Avengers is an entirely different comic, and the section will be expanding, it should be more than a sub-sub header. The fact is that they are merged. The New Avengers in either layout has its place as a part of the Avengers history, it should just be more of a predominant one.

I'd like to ask this again: Shouldn't the picture at the top of the page feature a different team? We've had Avengers around for decades, so why do the new/New Avengers get that spot?

Also, why do people keep removing to Ronin link? Has his page been deleted since I first linked it? -- Avengers fan 15:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge, not Delete

Look, you wanted to merge my page with this one and we did. The information that I'm putting here is perfectly relevant. As it's a new comic, it should be covered in more detail than you keep doing, and the The New Avengers comic series is in itself its own subject, so it's just going to keep expanding.

The whole reforming of the team comment is wrong! I keep saying! It's speculation! We don't know that the team in The New Avengers is called the Avengers! All we can do is state that fact! If you're not happy with the information being on this page, the only solution is to put it on its own page - and you've already decided you're not happy with that! -- Avengers fan

Brian Bendis, writer of New Avengers: "For a good long time. In the future you will see the sentry revealed, the mystery of Ronin, ninjas. More conspiracy. Spider-woman’s double crossing ways. Romance, a new baby, a new big villain, the Avengers go public. And all type of a-list artists tackling the book"
Direct reference to the team rather than the comic, no "New" in sight. - SoM 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

While I can see how it can be used to support your opinion, it still doesn't disprove my own. They're Avengers sure, but whether the team is called The Avengers or The New Avengers is still not clarified. If the team was called The New Avengers, they could still refer to themselves as Avengers. The source itself isn't incredibly reliable. "sentry" > "Sentry". "Spider-woman" > "Spider-Woman". Different kind of error but just as relevant. You've edited the source to emphasise "the Avengers", but if that was infact the name of the team, it would be The Avengers. It can just as easily be interpreted as "the Avengers", if you see my point. While I have no doubt that they're calling themselves Avengers, that doesn't clarify the actual name of the new team. I hope you see the point I'm trying to make. We can say something like Avengers are Marvel superheroes, but we can only speculate on the name of the actual team. I'm about the edit the page again, expand and change some misinformation. The New Avengers as a different comic should at least be a sub-heading! - Avengers fan 14:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it very amusing that you're calling one of the most respected and popular comics news sites and the writer of the series an "unreliable source". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Very well, substitute 'source' with 'quote' and there's no dispute. At least you've not argued against the point, which I'm assuming means that we're in agreement. -- Avengers fan
No, it does not. I was questioning your use of the adjective "unreliable", which is really rich when it comes to a statement straight from Bendis. Your reasoning above scarcely bears commenting on, as tortured as it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)



Breaking down the edits

Okay now I'm confused... There's nothing here about the changes I made... Could you please give an actual reason for the revert? And what's wrong with saying that The New Avengers is a comic book? IT IS! -- Avengers fan 16:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, the database was down and locked for a while. Patience. You keep adding to this so quickly that I keep getting edit conflicts when I'm trying to reply to you.

You wrote:

Avengers are Marvel Comics superheroes. The original team went under the name The Avengers and...
  • This is just another way of you trying to sneak in the idea that the two teams are different teams. They aren't.
The title has just been relaunched in its fourth incarnation, as The New Avengers.
  • The title of the comic book is New Avengers, not The New Avengers.
Appropriately titled "Chaos", it saw the return of Jack of Hearts and the destruction of the mansion and claimed the lives of Ant-Man, the Vision and Hawkeye. Tony Stark was also forced to resign as the United States Secretary of Defense and the United Nations severed their ties with the Avengers.
  • I approve of this condensation.
''The New Avengers is a comic book published by Marvel Comics. First released in February, 2005, it was created by Brian Michael Bendis, the man behind the events of Avengers Disassembled, and David Finch and is the story of a group of superheroes, coming together and becoming Avengers. While it is speculated, the true name of this group is unknown: The Avengers or The New Avengers.
  • The header should be under the 2000s, as was Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 of the Avengers under the 1990s. Once again, this is you trying to push the idea that the two titles are unrelated.
  • The summary as it was already talks about Bendis and Finch and in a more concise manner. You are the only one who believes that the true name of the group is unknown. Similarly the rest of your summary is overlong when the summary as it stood is more concise and contains all the same information.
Though he has yet to make an appearance, a character named Ronin is set to join the team. A mysterious figure, Ronin appears to be armed with a billy club/nunchaku-style weapon, leading many to believe that this could be a new alias/costume of Daredevil. However, Bendis has been known to lead reader to obvious conclusions that don't come into fruition. Ronin will be making his first appearance in The New Avengers #11.
  • This is speculative, and even if it is appropriate, should be in the Ronin article - which is up for AfD, by the way - and not here.

--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

And now I'm going to bed. Good night. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


If the title of the comic is not The New Avengers, why does the title of each comic read: THE NEW AVENGERS

I'm not trying to 'sneak anything in' anywhere. They're two different comics featuring Avengers. No matter what we may think, the fact is that we don't yet know the exact name of the team in The New Avengers, and the point of Wikipedia is to give the facts. I'm not the only person who sees that the new team may be called The New Avengers, if you read the discussion, but we don't know either way, and that's that matters. If you think the new team are called The Avengers, that's fine, but it's not fact.

The The New Avengers as a different comic should be more predominant in the graphology. It's not the same as Vol. 2 and Vol 3, it's an entirely new comic under a different title. I'm not disputing that it's a part of the history, just that it's important! -- Avengers fan 17:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The title of the book is "New Avengers", not "The New Avengers" and here's the proof (if you have NA7 to hand, check it yourself - it's at the bottom of the recap page). The official title is what is listed in the indicia, not what's on the cover, and the indicia just says "New Avengers".
And you're saying the fact that Bendis didn't capitalise "the" in "the Avengers" means something? NO-ONE capitalises the "the" before a team name unless it's the start of a sentence - "the X-Men," "the Young Avengers", "the JLA", etc, etc.
And it's as much the same team as the post-HR team was the same team as the pre-HR team, despite a year disbanded in-continuity. The team is the Avengers, not the New Avengers, just as the team was the X-Men, not the New X-Men, the team is the Thunderbolts, not the New Thunderbolts, the team was the Invaders, not the New Invaders, etc, etc. The only exception I can think of is the first volume of New Mutants, where the group was indeed called that (the second volume doesn't count, since the group was only formalised and named once the series had become New X-Men, subtitled "Academy X" on the cover.)
Get a grip, really. - SoM 18:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's still not proof of the name of the team. Until there is proof, what's wrong with stating that? And what's wrong with saying that The New Avengers/New Avengers is a comic?!?! And again, with the misinformation... Please stop reverting my edit to something that simply isn't true! - Avengers fan
Something else that may suggest that the teams are different. I'm not saying that they are - I'm simply saying that we don't know either way, and while I want to state the facts on this page, some of you are passing off opinion as fact which is just... What's the word..? Wrong...

The Avengers comic was called Avengers, not The Avengers. We know that the team itself was called the Avengers, probably accounting for the "the" on the covers.

Comic: Avengers . . . . . Team: The Avengers

The New Avengers comic is called New Avengers, not The New Avengers, but the covers all read The New Avengers.

Comic: New Avengers . . . . . Team: The New Avengers

You can't deny that it's possible. There has to be some reasoning behind that "The", and as it's been proven to not be the name of the comic, it could be the name of the team. While I see the reasoning behind this, I'm not saying that I agree. I'm just saying that I don't know - Just as none of you know. We can't pass off speculation as fact. -- Avengers fan 22:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason. It's called grammar; to remain consistent with The Avengers, the placement of the adjective "new" has to be The New Avengers. Perhaps you would rather have them put New The Avengers on the cover? Once again, you are the only one here that believes that the name of the team is an issue. --23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm the only one willing to admit that it's not a proven fact, and unless it is a fact, we can't go putting it on the page. Unless, or course we state that it's speculation! How stubborn are you people? And why would they put New The Avengers? What sense is that supposed to make? Your point about grammar is just confusing. To what The Avengers are you refering? The comic was called Avengers. The covers, however read The Avengers, which was the name of the team.

I'm pointing out that the new comic is called New Avengers. The covers, however read The New Avengers, which following that same idea, could be the name of the team! It's called logic! You people just aren't willing to see that possibility, and are stating your own views as though they are fact - WHICH THEY'RE NOT! -- Avengers fan


I'd like you to please tell me what's not relevant here:

My Edit:

New Avengers is a comic book published by Marvel Comics. First released in February, 2005, it was created by Brian Michael Bendis and David Finch and is the story of a group of superheroes, coming together and becoming Avengers. While it is speculated, the true name of this group is as yet unknown: the Avengers or the New Avengers.

(This is the FACTs, as condensed as we can get them! I know you want to deny it but you can't! New Avengers is a comic book! It was created by Bendis and Finch! You've got to move on and deal with it! Seriously!)

It's not created by Bendis and Finch. They don't receive creator credit. The Avengers were created by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Dick Ayers. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This whole paragraph is redundant. The "published by/etc" is at the top of the page, and it being "created by" Bendis and Finch isn't true (Bendis, indeed, mentions that restarting from #1 was "not his call" in the thing I linked above). And we've established to the satisfaction of everyone else that the team is called "the Avengers".

The core group was gathered together unintentionally, when supervillian Electro shut down the S.H.I.E.L.D Raft installation, a maximum-maximum security prison for super-powered criminals, releasing all of the inmates and breaking out Karl Lykos (Sauron).

(Three lines as an overview of WHAT brought the team together.)

Trapped on the island were S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Jessica Drew (a.k.a. Spider-Woman), Matt Murdock (a.k.a. Daredevil) and Luke Cage. They were eventually joined by Captain America, Spider-Man and Iron Man, helped by a seemingly insane Sentry. Their combined efforts and the prisoners' surrender delivered their victory, though forty two inmates escaped.

(Four lines about HOW the team is brought together. They're not answering a "call for help" as you keep saying. That's just you trying to condense the facts into something that is no longer true.)

Captain America decided that fate had brought this group together, just as it had the original Avengers. All but Daredevil, going through his own personal crisis, join up and with the Avengers Mansion still in pieces, Tony Stark (Iron Man) is headquartering them in Stark Tower.

(I really don't see what's wrong with this. The fact of Matt Murdock's personal crisis may be irrelevant, but that's the only thing this paragraph can be without!)

The team make it their mission to discover the mystery of the Sentry and to track down and recapture the escaped prisoners, but they soon learn that not all is as it seems with S.H.I.E.L.D. They are not as forthcoming as the heroes may have hoped and secrets are being kept.

(Two sentences about the new team's mission. This is the first time S.H.I.E.L.D. has been mentioned, and it is incredibly relevant to the New Avengers story.)

All the information is already in the paragraph as it stands. Why would any of this improve matters? People want to know about Spider-Woman's involvement with SHIELD - there it is in the Spider-Woman article. Matt Murdock's personal crisis, go read the Daredevil entry. Sentry mystery - mentioned. Escaped prisoners - mentioned. Ryker's island - mentioned. Sauron - mentioned. You condensed "Avengers Disasembled" down very well to one paragraph - why not this one? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
All the above is covered by

However, this latest dissolution of the team only lasted until the launch of the New Avengers title in February 2005, written by Bendis and pencilled by David Finch. The new title began with a supervillain prison Riot at the Raft, the Maximum-Maximum Security Facility at the Ryker's Island prison, instigated by Electro to free Karl Lykos, also known as Sauron. The call for help was answered by Captain America, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Luke Cage, Spider-Woman and Daredevil, who quelled the riot with assistance from the imprisoned and seemingly insane Sentry.

The heroes decided to remain together as a new team of Avengers with the exception of Daredevil, who turned down Captain America's offer. They later added Wolverine to the team following a trip to the Savage Land where they reapprehended Sauron.

in a few less words and generally better prose.

A character named Ronin is set to join the team, making his first appearance in New Avengers #11.

(One sentence! One sentence about the future of the comic!)

And it's there, just phrased differently from you. What we don't need is speculation about whether he's Daredevil or not. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I know you're not happy, but these are the facts! I'm not just going to stop expanding the article because it's now a part of this page. Any relevant information, I'm putting it in. Please, you've got to get over it! - Avengers fan 10:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I already said the same about you. - SoM 11:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's you who are having trouble getting over it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
All I'm trying to do is make this article more detailed and present the facts. You two are too narrow-minded to see the possibility that you're not omnipotent and may not be right about everything. Unless you have some sort of proof about the name of the team, you can't publish that your opinion IS the name of the team. You can only say it could be! And what did SoM already say about me? - Avengers fan



Trying again to add this to discussion...

I'll just start by saying; khaosworks, huh? My objections have not been addressed.

I'm sorry to revert the Avengers article. I know some of you don't like my edits, but it had to be done. Firstly, can I ask what was wrong with mentioning S.H.I.E.L.D.? It had nothing to do with Jessica Drew as khaosworks said, it was one sentence mentioning the relationship between S.H.I.E.L.D. and the New Avengers, which is incredibly relevant. Note that I said New Avengers. And now I take us to issue #9 of New Avengers:

"When a breakout occurs... formation of the team has not been made public, the New Avengers, including the X-Man Wolverine... the dark underbelly of S.H.I.E.L.D. that the New Avengers now find themselves up against."

See that? New Avengers... Not new Avengers.

The team in New Avengers is not called the Avengers, they're called the New Avengers. While I wasn't sure before, and was glad to state the speculation that we didn't know what the team was called, there's no doubt at all that the team is named the New Avengers.

You can deny it as much as you want, it'll just do you no good. Maybe if you actually read the comics you'll see for yourself.

Hmmm... So if the team's called the New Avengers... And the comic's called New Avengers... I wonder what it's doing on a page about the Avengers...

The article currently states the very basic Who, What, When, Where, Why, How. What's wrong with it being detailed and informative? Why do you keep reverting to an inferior revision?

Actually, given this new information, the New Avengers page should be restored! We're not talking about the Avengers team anymore.

The only way to keep them both on this page is to go back to a previous version of the page, one that was created soon after the merge, my own edit that said something along the lines of "Avengers are superheroes...", and then explained the two comics/teams. As usual, khaosworks reverted said edit on the basis that he didn't agree, but there can't be any argument now. We're not just dealing with two different comics anymore. We're dealing with two different teams. So glad to be right! :D

Avengers fan 08:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You're quoting from a pre-splash page synopsis. They're still not called the "New Avengers" in story. They're the "new" Avengers. There's a difference. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

New Avengers

I'm quoting from the pages of New Avengers. Look, I get the impression that you don't like to be wrong, khaosworks and SoM, and I know if I was you I'd be less than impressed, but the fact is that I am not you and I am right!


Comic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Team

Avengers . . . . . . . . . . . . the Avengers

West Coast Avengers . . . the West Coast Avengers

Great Lakes Avengers . . . the Great Lakes Avengers

New Avengers . . . . . . . . . the New Avengers

I'm sorry that you disagree but facts are facts. While all of the characters are Avengers, the teams they belong to are not the same - there are four different teams.

It's the very first page of the comic, clearly stating the name of the team as the New Avengers. It's the only page in the comics where the name of the team is actually, without any doubt, proven, as it is "THE NEW AVENGERS", everywhere else.

I know that you think the "new" is an adjective, but this is proof that it's not! The team is called the New Avengers. You have to deal with this. The constant reverting is just getting stupid. Whatever your opinion is, the FACT is that the team is called the New Avengers.

The Wasp was never a New Avenger. Scarlet Witch was never a New Avenger. Spider-Woman was never a member of the Avengers. We need different superhero team boxes, and if you're not happy with that, the only option is to restore the pages to the way they were.

The West Coast Avengers is a team, a comic, and it has its own article.

The Great Lakes Avengers is a team, a comic, and it has its own article.

The Avengers is a team, a comic, and it has its own article.

(Starting to see a pattern here?)

The New Avengers is a team, a comic, and it should have its own article.

I can't believe I didn't look at that sooner! When you kept reverting I was starting to wonder that maybe I was wrong, but I'm now content in the safety of my knowledge that I was right all along! :D

Since you're not happy believing the VERY FIRST PAGE of each New Avengers comic, let's take a look at some dialogue from issue 4.

Captain America: WE HAVE PUT A NEW AVENGERS TEAM TOGETHER.

Now, I know you think the new is an adjective (Which, as proven, is wrong) but let's examine this for a second. "We have put a new Avengers team together." Makes sense. "We have put a New Avengers team together." Makes sense!

I'm assuming you interpret "a new Avengers team" to mean that it's a reformation of the Avengers team. If that was true, there would be no reason for the following exchange between the New Avengers and Special Agent Hill.

(Hill dismisses them, and the only reason for this dismissal is that the Avengers team is gone, and Cap is putting together the New Avengers.)

Captain America: ... TO ASSEMBLE ANY TEAM I SEE FIT TO GO ON ANY MISSION...

He's assembled a new team. If he had reassembled the Avengers team, then there would be no problem!

I'm happy the keep the pages merged for the time being, but this evidence is damning against your point of view, and the New Avengers team will have to have their own article soon enough.

- Avengers fan 20:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


The "a" and "team" wouldn't be there if it was part of the name. It would just be "we have put the New Avengers together". Your reading of the line as printed does not make sense, and it goes against your own view.
And the Avengers HAD disbanded, and with a non-superhero friendly SHIELD director in place (i.e., not Nick Fury or one of his pals), Cap had to pull rank. But the Avengers disbanding is nothing new - like I said, they've disbanded on at least five seperate occasions before.
And the other teams were running concurrently with the main Avengers team, so they're not valid examples. Find me an example in dialogue that says "New Avengers HQ", or some other completely unambigous example. At present the writer of the book is calling them "the Avengers", and I don't see any likelihood that some other such will be the case. - SoM 20:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
LMAO! I put it is straight-forward and simple as possible and you still argue! I was just wondering the extent of your qualifications in English Language that makes you feel secure in stating that the dialogue I quoted proves the team to be called the new Avengers? Because, as I stated directly after the quote, it can mean either. Throughout the dialogue it is the same, wherever "NEW AVENGERS" is said, it can mean "new Avengers" or "New Avengers", and going from what I've been taught all through my life, I translate from context and simple common sense that the name of the team is the New Avengers.

"At present the writer of the book is calling them "the Avengers""? I'm sorry, but no. The writer of the book is not calling them "the Avengers", he's calling them "the Avengers"! (And I translate this due to the fact that the team is called the New Avengers) Hawkeye was an Avenger. Mr Immortal is an Avenger. The teams they belong to are different. All of the members of the Avengers, the West Coast Avengers, the Great Lakes Avengers, the New Avengers... They're all Avengers, it's the team names and the comics that are different!

You say that the Avengers team keeps reforming. Yeah, but this is not the same thing. Every time the group disbanded it was in the pages of Avengers, and every time the group reformed it was in the pages of Avengers. The team itself was called the Avengers.

The Avengers team and the Avengers comic are over. The New Avengers features a different team of Avengers known as the New Avengers. (And just a side note, even if there was dialogue saying "NEW AVENGERS HQ", you would still deny it and say it meant "new Avengers HQ")

But, since you're not happy believing the dialogue, and you're not happy believing the very first page of each comic - the only place where the name of the team is given in a standard form as opposed to the block capitals and clarifying it perfectly, why not look at THE CLASSIC MARVEL FIGURINE COLLECTION. And remember that this is an OFFICIAL Marvel book. From Spidey's issue:

"With Captain America persuading him to join the New Avengers..."

I know you don't like it but you are wrong.

Since we are dealing with two different teams, under two different names, in this one article, we need two boxes. As I said, the Wasp was never a former member of the New Avengers, and no one is a current member of the Avengers!

- Avengers fan 07:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your search for sources is getting more and more desperate. "Classic Marvel Figurine Collection"? There is still no in-story reference to the team as the "New Avengers". This newest one that you pulled out of left field is marketing, as is the pre-splash synopsis. Look at New Thunderbolts. The team isn't the "New Thunderbolts" in-story - it's still the Thunderbolts. Even the "to be continued" box at the end of the latest issue talks about how the New Thunderbolts meet the New Avengers, but that's still not an in-story mention, it's marketing. You're telling us that advertising copy takes precedence over the writer himself calling them the Avengers. It is clear from the context of the quote he is talking about the main team, not the GLA, not the WCA, not everyone who's ever been an Avenger. Please, get a grip. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Desperate? I'd say concise! Weldone Avengers_fan! You were right! Every mention of "New Avengers" I've seen clearly states "New Avengers", not "new Avengers", so the theory of adjectives is completely discredited. You know, Mister Khaosworks, and Mister SoM, you really shouldn't accuse a member of being insane because they disagree with you (and have more than just their opinion to back up their ideas). It's not appropriate on a public forum and I can see how someone could take offence. Now why don't you just surrender with some grace and dignity? SweetSurrender
At one point, I would like to agree with Avengers_fan. Well, the team broke up and reformed and Bendis had this idea of renaming the comic, and even Marvel called them New Avengers in the Breakout collection (as Avengers_fan always puts it), but, even Marvel is a bit confused with the Avengers. Would anyone agree? I have two hands, and thet're both bolt upright.
If you just visit their webpage, all the New Avengers comics are under the Avengers' page. That's point the first. But as I said earlier, Marvel called them New Avengers in the Breakout jacket. That's point -- er -- the second (I am really poor in ripping off people). Next, Captain America, Maria Hill, Iron Man, and other characters in Marvel keep referring the New Avengers as Avengers. That's point the third, and I took them all from Avengers_fan's viewpoint.
Now, I know there shouldn't be any confusion at all, the Avengers and the New Avengers are on and the same, but if you try to see it at Avengers_fan's point, it would really seem confusing. And I did see it from his viewpoint. But kidding aside, the New Avengers are the same shoe as the Avengers, only they are polished and magicked. That I believe, and I am holding on to that belief.
And, hey, I am the one who first called Avengers_fan insane. --Windspinner 00:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Bendis didn't want to change the name - Marvel editorial was the one that suggested it. Basically, Avengers_fan can't distinguish, and continues to be unable to distinguish, between marketing and in-story usage of the terms. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Er, thanks for mentioning; I never knew that. --Windspinner 00:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a question. Should we place here the fact that the Watchtower (Sentry's old HQ) just installed itself on top of Stark Tower? Or do we now need a page for the New Avengers comic (not the team itself)? Things are just happening so fast for them recently; Ronin's about to make an appearance, too. --Windspinner 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (backdate by a day)

That information belongs more properly in the Sentry article, really, or a Stark Tower article. Not every plot development needs to be detailed, especially in a general article on the team, unless you want to start writing articles on every story arc. Broad strokes is the key here - is the information actually useful to people? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's not that important, it's just that the fact is so much fun, I mean a tower over another. Just when you thought Stark Tower couldn't get any more -- er -- kick-ass. Anyways, I might just as well place it on the Sentry article as I do not know if there is a Stark Tower article. I am recently helping improve the Sentry article, but I just don't know how I am faring. --Windspinner 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The entry looks all right to me. I don't know all that much about the Sentry (never cared much for the original miniseries), so I can't say much more. Personally, I miss the Mansion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Revert

Note: That's how a proper and correct revert is done, Khaosworks. The reverter doesn't just go back to the last version they liked, they include the correct and relevant edits there have been since. I still haven't taken that 'and' out and put the comma back yet, but I will soon.

I'm sorry people, but we're not in Nazi Germany, and as long as I can help it, Truth and Right will win.

The team is called the New Avengers. Your whole "adjective" argument has no legs to stand on. This whole "I'm right and every printed publication is wrong" attitude is just sad.

The only examples of THE NEW AVENGERS written in regular type face clearly state "the New Avengers". Adjectives aren't given captial letters unless they're also a proper noun. In this case, "New" is a proper noun and therefore, "the New Avengers" is the name of the team!

I'm going to go back to this again because for some reason you people just don't see it:

Jessica Drew: "...A NEW AVENGER."

A New Avenger! There is no way she would say "a new Avenger". The English language just doesn't work like that (considering the vast majority of Marvel characters speak S.E., and often R.P., unless they're clearly being given an accent). If she wasn't a New Avenger, she would say she was asked to be "an Avenger".

The comment about Bendis is also, equally as devalued and empty. He calls them the Avengers, but that's the Avengers, not the Avengers! They are Avengers, but they belong to the team the New Avengers. This, we know from every printed publication of these words!

And the comment about the Marvel site listing New Avengers under Avengers... They also list Young Avengers under the Avengers heading, are we going to merge all three comics?

-- Avengers fan

"...and as long as I can help it, Truth and Right will win."
...
Is this some sort of Holy War on your part or something? - SoM 11:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
If that's how you wish to define it. Right is right. "Your version" of the article is not right. If it's not right, it's wrong, and if it's wrong, it has no place on Wikipedia. I found you the proof you requested in the latest issue of New Avengers. Not only did it clearly state, once again, on the first page of the comic, the name of the team, but here's a quote from Captain America:
"THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A NEW AVENGERS" (Issue 11)
The determiner 'a' would not be used unless preceded by the proper noun "New". Not the adjective "new", the proper noun "New". "New Avengers". If he had said "THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE NEW AVENGERS", you could argue that it read "That's why we have the new Avengers", but that 'the' is an 'a', and that 'a' declares the proper noun. There's no arguing with the English language. Avengers fan 17:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No, for your reading to be right, it would have to be "the" - the definite article - rather than "a" - the indefinite article. You have it back to front.
And for ***** sake, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style - even if I didn't object to the content of your version, stylistically it's a mess. - SoM 22:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've read the MoS. Since we're covering two topics in one article, we need two headings. The only other solution to this is to revert back to seperate articles. And again, the team is called the New Avengers.
For "That's why we have a new Avengers" to work, there would need to be some post-modification. As it stands, it makes no sense. To be gramatically correct, this sentence needs to read: "That's why we have a new Avengers team." Since there is no post-modification, the facts all indicate the noun phrase including "New Avengers" as the name of the team and the proper noun rather than the adjective. Please, I'm working on my PhD in English Language, I know what I'm talking about. You simply care more about being right than you do about this article. Avengers fan 22:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
This endless reverting has got to stop. It's getting bloody messy, this article. Is there any way we can disallow Avengers_fan from editing this? Seriously, I think your versions are way unstylish and tasteless, sorry pal. You just have to let things the way they are. The word new there is a modifier, an adjective. The word new is placed there to signify that the team has undergone a restructuring, and as khaosworks has explained, it was there for marketing. If you change a caterpillar to a butterfly, it would still be a bug, wouldn't it? It is still the same Avengers. Windspinner aka 202.164.185.100 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC). I was too lazy to log-in

Seriously, people. Take an English lesson. Or try common sense: "That's why we have a new Avengers" has no meaning. If the "new" is an adjective, then the singluar determiner "a" cannot be used. It would have to read "That's why we have the new Avengers". Since that is not the sentence, and "a" is used, there needs to be some post-modification. It's the only way the sentence can have meaning: "That's why we have a new Avengers team." This, also is not the sentence.

The only way "THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A NEW AVENGERS" can work is through the use of the proper noun. "That's why we have a New Avengers." "The" (as SoM pointed out) also works, but "A" is used here and that clearly signifies the proper noun. Whether you agree or not, there is no arguing with this evidence. The name of the team is New Avengers. The name of the comic is New Avengers.

The reason for the messy edit is that people wanted the two articles, the two teams, and the comics merged onto one page. Since there are two teams on this page, there need to be two headings, and there need to be two superhero team boxes. It's the only way for the article to be correct, messy as it is, without seperate articles.

I realise that you don't want to be wrong. You're been reverting the correct edits for so long, and clearly think you are right, but you really can't argue with the English language. There are two readings of "THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A NEW AVENGERS.":

"That's why we have a new Avengers." and "That's why we have a New Avengers."

Only the latter is correct, and it's a direct quote from the comic, not only the first page of the comic... How you can say that that every New Avengers comic is wrong is a concept I simply cannot grasp...

As far as the "marketing" goes, how can you believe that every printed publication is wrong and that you are right?

When the article is correct, I won't revert, but since this is Wikipedia, what is right is what we have to concern ourselves with, which you people simply do not see. "That's why we have a new Avengers" makes no sense! Your defense was grammar, and there has never been a sentence like this befre that completely destroys your "adjective" theory. It's "New Avengers". Get used to it. Avengers fan 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm sorry if some of my opinions seem recycled, but I gave up on this page halfway down, as all this discussion is is an argument between Avengers_fan and anyone who's opinion differs from his. The facts are that the Avengers have assembled and disassembled many times and have had many members, unlike JLA who has a very fixed(?) roster. In 2004 the Avengers went through a storyline designed to streamline the team. When this storyline finished, the New Avengers comic book was launched, featuring a new Avengers team, which, instead of being what the Avengers slipped into (a title featuring Cap, Iron Man, Thor and also some second- rate superheroes not good enough for thier own books e.g. Jack of Hearts), featured a JLA-style team with old Avengers members (Cap, Iron Man) and some of the most popular Marvel characters (Spider-Man, Wolverine). However this team is still the Avengers. The ''New'' is just a qualifier to distinguish the team as one people should be interested in. Feel free to ask for more opinions. --Jamdav86 12:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with that scenario, is that for it to be correct, we have to ignore every New Avengers comic and disregard every printed publication.
I gather that fans don't want to let go of the Avengers, but that comic and that team is over. The new comic is called New Avengers. The new team (skanky as it sounds) is called the New Avengers.
How can you argue against this? It simply does not make sense that a handful of "fans" are right and every written source (the only concrete evidence there is as to the name of the team) is wrong!
And I'm going to say this again: "That's why we have a new Avengers." Not even a five-year-old speaking English as their third language could mistake that for a sentence that makes any form of sense. Which is why the only translation of it can be "That's why we have a New Avengers." If there was some evidence to suggest otherwise, it would be open to discussion, but how can every printed publication be wrong? Something tells me these people know a lot more about what they're talking about than you... Avengers fan 09:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a 3-revert maximum on Wikipedia. Please try to follow the rules... Avengers fan 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That is good advice. Please follow it yourself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, I'm not a fan and I haven't read a single comic of the Avengers (though I am planning to pick up Essential Avengers Vol. 1 very soon) but it's obvious to even me that just because the book is called New Avengers it doesn't actually mean the team is the New Avengers. If you carry on like this you should be banned. You're even worse than User:Brown Shoes22, since he actually contributes instead of starting edit wars. --Jamdav86 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I second that. He's always singing that stupid "That's why we have a New Avengers" song and it's kinda getting into my nerves. Honestly, if you use "a" and something like "new" follows it, "new" is most likely an adjective, not a proper noun: "a new Larry", "a new Amanda Show". Tell me, anyone, does 'new' in those examples sound like a proper noun? No, they don't, they never will. The nerve of that guy showing off unprovable education, bending the rules of grammar and pitting in innocent non-native Anglo-Saxon-speaking children into this argument! How distasteful, indeed! --Windspinner 00:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Look: "new Avengers" has never been written anywhere. The comic is called "New Avengers". Throughout the text in the comics, they are referred to as "NEW AVENGERS", and context suggests that the 'new' is a proper noun.
New Avengers #6, page 1: "...the New Avengers decide to persue..."
New Avengers #7, page 1: "...the New Avengers, including the X-Man Wolverine..."
New Avengers #8, page 5: "...the New Avengers banded together..."
New Avengers #9, page 1: "...the day the New Avengers joined together."
The Classic Marvel Figurine Collection #1, page 9: "With Captain America persuading him to
join the New Avengers..."
Every written source tells us that the "New" in NEW AVENGERS is a proper noun. If "new Avengers" has never been printed anywhere, how can it be right, and how can every printed publication be wrong? It doesn't make sense. The only proof there is as to the name of the team declares that it's "New Avengers". All you people are doing is declaring your opinions as fact, while lacking actual/concrete evidence to back them up! Avengers fan 09:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again, all your cites are the synopsis, out-of-story context pages. Nothing has changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
And once again, all my cites declare that the name of the team is New Avengers, so how can you continue to say it's wrong? Whether out-of-story or not, the only evidence as to the name of the team is given as New Avengers. Nowhere does anything, anywhere say that they're the new Avengers. Even in-story, they are constantly being referred to as THE NEW AVENGERS. Since the in-story context does not clarify New Avengers or new Avengers, the sources I have given are the only evidence, either way, that we have on the matter, and all of this evidence tells us that the name of the team is New Avengers. Avengers fan 17:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting into this pretty late in the game, so forgive me if I'm covering old territory, but I'd like to throw in my two cents. First of all, as far as I see it, the "New Avengers" title is merely a marketing technique, and that the actual TEAM is close enough to the original to be considered and extension, and therefore belongs on the "Avengers" page. As a precedent, I'd like to cite Darth Vader, a page that contains info on both Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. While the character underwent some very radical changes, even being called by a different name, it was still the same person at the core, and therefore one page was all that was needed to cover both.

I'd also like to remind Avengers fan, with all due respect, that Wikipedia is governed by consensus. While this discussion is perfectly healthy, at some point, a decision will need to be made, and I can only hope that you are willing to be the bigger man and accept the will of the community, whichever way it may sway. --InShaneee 21:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me that Wikipedia is governed by consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia is that articles are governed by fact, not POV. As far as Darth Vadar goes, I cannot see how there could be any argument there. It was one character simply changing their name. This is an entirely different situation. Here we have a dissolution of a team and an end of a comic, and the founding of a different team and the begining of a comic. As I keep saying, there is no evidence to suggest that the NEW is an adjective and that the name of the team is new Avengers. So at the moment it is POV, which we tend to be against, here on Wikipedia. If some evidence was brought forward to suggest otherwise, maybe it would result in some actual discussion, but at the moment several people here seem to have the school-ground mentality of "I'm right and you're wrong", followed quickly by the sticking out of the tongue, though as has arisen here: "I'm right and every form of written evidence is wrong", and "And I agree with him 'cos he's my friend", which is an argument that has simply nowhere to go. Avengers fan 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Tagging a note on here: Khaosworks and SoM refuse to allow my edit to mimic the Darth Vadar page. The Darth Vadar page begins with the present and then talks about the past. The Darth Vadar page has two boxes. Khaosworks and SoM have decided that this is "wrong", so sadly, your comparison fails to apply. :( Avengers fan
And I CANNOT spell Vader! Lol!
  • Interesting side-note - the reason there are two info-boxes on the Darth Vader page is because in III Anakin died so that Vader could live. The reason that it's called Darth Vader is that the Darth Vader name is more popular. This does not apply on this page, as Avengers is Avengers. Just like white bread and brown bread is all bread. BTW, sorry for adding this in the middle. --Jamdav86 18:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you (Avengers_fan) missed my point. "Consensus" is generally defined on wikipedia as the general opinion of the majority of editors. Not to say that the rule by the masses is the law of wikipedia, but in general, as long as no policies are being broken, that's the generally accepted path to go, and it's worked for us in the past with few exceptions. Also, I think you misunderstand the "NPOV" policy. There is a big difference between having a point of view about an issue (bad) and having a point of view about the direction of a page (not neccisarily bad). Now, I can certainly appreciate your position. I've had to put up with editors who were doing things I found absurd with pages I've cared about, and they simply refused to be dissuaded. You, however, are in a good position, what with New Avengers just getting off the ground. It could well be that at sometime in the future the New Avengers will clearly distinguish themselves from the old in a way that's obvious to everyone. But for the moment, just know that revert warring isn't going to solve anything. Believe me. --InShaneee 03:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Avengersfan is unable to tell the difference between story and marketing. He proposes that, since the title of the comic is different, the story content is unrelated. However, there is no "New Avengers" team. The team is still called "Avengers" in the story. Two previous members are on the team. They recognize this as similar to the founding of the original team. Even the author of the comic claims he was forced by marketing to adopt the "New" in the cover title. --Pc13 14:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree to what Pc13 said. I also think I have something here to back it up, it's something called THE OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE: AVENGERS #1. The introduction is enough to convince me that New Avengers the same team as the Avengers. The introduction chronicled that the Avengers had new members, namely Wolverine, Spider Man, etc. It's from the OFFICIAL HANDBOOK, I don't think I should contest. --Windspinner 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Header purely for the edit link
I think you mean OHOTMU: Avengers 2005 :) - SoM 09:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's marketing. It's possibly the only publication in existence to call the New Avengers the Avengers, and if they hadn't done so, they could not have published the book. A "New Avengers" Handbook would not have worked, and an Official Handbook is no better than other official source.

Also, in reference to the mention of New Thunderbolts, that team has never been called the New Thunderbolts. The name of various comics has changed to include the "New" but only the name of the Avengers team has changed with it. The first page of New Thunderbolts refers to them as "new T-Bolts" or "new Thunderbolts", but in New Avengers, the team is called the "New Avengers". The Avengers may be the only example of a team being renamed, and you can't deny it just because you don't like it. Avengers fan 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. They're called just "the Avengers" multiple times in the comic book. In dialogue, I hasten to add. New Avengers #6, pages 2, 19; #7, page 3 ("I got the Avengers back together"), 5; #8, page 7 ("member of the Avengers"), 8; #11, page 3, for starters. The only times they are called new Avengers is in the context of an adjective, comparing it to the "original Avengers" (see #6, page 21, where all three, "new Avengers", "the Avengers" and "the original Avengers" are used, in contrast with one another). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear. Rather than drop the subject and bow to overwhelming consensus, Avengers fan has been resurrected like so many popular comic-book villains. --Jamdav86 18:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just don't see why we have to ignore the fact that the name of the team has changed. Nowhere in any New Avengers comic is the team called "new Avengers". As has been pointed out, "new Avengers" is only given in one printed publication. Everywhere else the team's name is "New Avengers", or "NEW AVENGERS". While they do refer to themselves as "Avengers", and whether some people think it is marketing or not, the official name of the team has still been given as "New Avengers". Also, as far as the 'marketing' goes, why would they call the New Avengers "New Avengers", when on the equivalent pages of a not-so-different Marvel comic, the team is called "new T-Bolts"? Avengers fan

Because the name of the team has not changed. Only the title of the comic. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but that still doesn't answer the question. Which team? I know the name of the Thunderbolts team hasn't changed -- I said that... The team in the New Thunderbolts comics is the Thunderbolts, which is why they are called the "new T-Bolts". So if the name of the team in New Avengers also hasn't changed, why would the comics call them "New Avengers", not to mention various other sources. Even if your 'marketing' idea was correct, it would not make sense to continue calling the Thunderbolts "Thunderbolts" and publishing "New Avengers" as the name of the Avengers... Avengers fan 13:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, lesse. Apart from the clear examples khaos gave and the OHTOMU, how about Luke Cage referring to the team as "the Avengers" in Cable/Deadpool #21? (the C/D recap page, in it's usual fourth-wall-breaking, refers to New Avengers, the title when discussing Iron Fist's desire to see Power Man and Iron Fist restarted). And I'm pretty certain their NTB guest app referred to the team simply as "the Avengers" too. - SoM 13:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh God. Just when you thought this issue's dead, it had to spring to life at All Saints's Day. Well, I'm compelled to share this with everyone. If you take a look at Marvel's solicitation for Issue #15 of New Avengers, located here (for now at least), you'll notice the words, "Some stay and some go. And some old friends come back to the fold." Er-- how can our old friends come back to the fold if they were not even part of it before? If the fold is new? If New Avengers is not the same team as the Avengers? Just me asking. --Windspinner 05:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh for God f'ing sakes. ITS THE AVENGERS YOU FRICKIN MORON. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT DAMN MINDS WOULD PUT THE WORD NEW IN THEIR FRICKIN TEAM'S NAME!? Is the concept that "New Avengers" is just the title of the book flying through one ear, past your two brain cells and out the other ear or you just a Wikidouche? WE ARE NOT REVIVING THE "NEW AVENGERS" ARTICLE. DEAL WITH IT.--Kross | Talk 05:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Oy, Kross! Keep your head on, buddy. I was trying to say that New Avengers is the comic book name and that the team is still the Avengers. Guess I was trying to be too pretty and too coy that some didn't see the light I was trying to shed. I mean some say that New Avengers isn't the Avengers, well I don't agree. I really don't. It's the same team, only the comic book title is different. I was trying to point out that if the team is New Avengers and it's an entirely new group, then how can it have old members who'd rejoin? I'll say it again. The solicitation for Issue # 15 clearly states, "Some stay and some go. And some old friends come back to the fold." I mean you can not rejoin something you have never been a part of. I'll stress this, and sorry if I am becoming too monotonous. Marvel said it, "Some old friends come back to the fold," some former Avengers will rejoin the team!' Who they are? I don't know. But how can they rejoin if they were never in the team before? What's that? Of course, they were in the team before. And what's the team's name? The Avengers, duh. I hope I made my point clear, New Avengers is just the title of the comic book, the team remains the Avengers. Jeez. Really! I thought my stating the OHOTMU was enough to stop anyone from claiming that New Avengers is different from the Avengers. No more coy-play from now on, I guess. --Windspinner 08:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was quite calm when I typed that. If I was mad, there would have been ALOT of profanity. A whole lot. ;)--Kross | Talk 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that New Avengers is not the name of the team? Every New Avengers comic to date has claimed that the name of the team is New Avengers. Even the link that was provided in a previous message states:

The time has come for the New Avengers to go public. Who will stand and declare themselves a New Avenger? Some stay and some go. And some old friends come back to the fold. All this and the New Avengers face their toughest opponent yet... J. Jonah Jameson! Plus the secrets of Jessica Drew continue.

And again, in the comics they are called NEW AVENGERS. I'm not saying that they are not also referred to as Avengers, however, the team's name is also given as New Avengers; not new Avengers but New Avengers.

OHOTMU is only one source, and there are an equal amount that claim New Avengers as the name of the team featured in New Avengers. Also, it doesn't say anything about old members rejoining. It says that old friends come back to the fold. Coming back into the fold can mean old friends coming back to join Cap and Iron Man. It doesn't say anything about rejoining. Avengers fan 18:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ever heard of Saeki Kayako, Avengers_fan? You know she died once, but she never gave up on life. So she became a ghost and appeared in two Japanese movies and one American. You remind me of her. You just never give up. Your tireless resurrections of this issue regarding NA being a different team put Jean Grey's numerous resurrections to shame. Your persistence is admirable, if not annoying.
So you got your points, New Avengers was said couple of times in that quote from Marvel's site. Fine. They said it in the comics. Fine. But let me clarify some things. First, the OHOTMU. SO you're telling me that the OHOTMU is wrong. That's like fact book, an encyclopedia, it can't be wrong. The team name remains Avengers even if 3 Million people practicing Marketing call them New Avengers.
Next, this line from Issue 15 solicitation: Some stay and some go. And some old friends come back to the fold. Look up the word fold on the dictionary and you'll see that it also may mean a group. I'm sure fold was used in that context. So it does say about rejoining. So you're also telling me that Bendis and people in avengersforever.org forum talking about the possibilities of Warbird rejoining the team is utter nonsense?
Look at it this way, Warbird changed looks and costumes, powers, and names, like, three times. First, she was Ms. Marvel, then she was Binary, and now she is Warbird; but she essentially remains the same hero. Same goes with the Avengers and New Avengers. They changed rosters, bases of operations, representatives, and now even their comic title. But they essentially have the same goal, the same spirit, the same rules of engagement (no killing!). If their comic have been rechristened to some other name, say The Revengers, and Marvel and people started calling them that, then I might share your sentiment. But no. Even Marvel refers to them time and again as the Avengers either explicitly or implictly. And that must mean something. What is that? It's the same old team under a New marketing strategy. Finally, allow me to quote Kross, thank you, "Deal with that!" --Windspinner 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I may note once again, ad nauseum, that in story they are the Avengers, and always have been. Instances of "new" have always been in the context of adjectives, not proper names. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Guess I kinda forgot that point about adjectives and proper nouns. Is this a good time to miss the mansion? --Windspinner 05:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronin

Hey, since I'm here already, I might wanna discuss about that Ronin stuff. Should we place it already? I've talked to people who have read the DK Press stuff and they said it was true. Or do we wait til Issue #13? --Windspinner 05:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Not terribly bothered either way, as long as there's a cite for it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I am terribly bothered; I was just spoilt and I wanna spoil everyone else. No, seriously, I got the DK book with me and it was really there. So can I edit, or can you, khaos, do the honors and cite this little DK Press spoiler. Oh by the way, the book is simply gorgeous. I'm gonna be editing the Ronin page anyways and I might as well merge that article, if I can, with Echo's. --Windspinner 06:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What Happened?

This page looked nice and the information was decent. Now it sucks. There is no need for so many headings. Subheadings in the Avengers issues are simply not necessary. A text heading, maybe in itallic or bold, but not an actual border heading of its own! Why did Other Media have to be retitled Alternate Avengers, and why can't those subheadings be merged back under an Other Media heading? They aren't actually Alternate Avengers. Alternate implies that the comic is the only representation of the Avengers team and that others are... alternate! (preceding unsigned comment by 84.66.202.215 (talk · contribs) )

Awards

I've reworded and left this section in, but I would like more opinions on this, as I'm not being nominated for a Squiddy is that big a deal (as I stated in the edit summary, even I got nominated once for favorite poster on r.a.c). Winning, possibly, not not just a nomination - there are tons of those. Also, I removed the Awards Almanac link since that's just generic and not related directly to the Avengers. Please discuss. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The "squiddy" nominations have been removed by the person who put them in in the first place. Also, the more direct link to the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards subpage has been put in as a replacement for the other link as it is the only one which I know of which lists the CBG awards. I will remove it if it is too vague, or if it is decided that the awards are not significant, however. Badbilltucker 15:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
They're significant if and only if they win. - SoM 19:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Avengers Forever?

  • Don't merge. It would make sense to merge it if it were a story arc within the Avengers title, but it was a separate mini-series running concurrently with the main title, like The Domination Factor was (and unlike New Avengers, which is a continuation of the Avengers title). Placing it inside here with the associated summary would bloat the article, and we'd probably have to daughter it out with a {{seemain}} sooner rather than later. Note that a major story arc like "Operation: Galactic Storm" has its own page. Avengers Forever is just as notable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. However:
    1. A don't merge vote shall now be counted as a willingness to expand the article.
    2. I think the story section needs splitting off to History of the Avengers, and I shall proclaim my willingness to help with both of my suggestions. --Jamdav86 13:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, expand what article? As to the other, I don't disagree with a History of the Avengers in principle, but I merely fear the spectre of fancruftiness. --khaosworks (talk • contribs)
  • Don't merge. And expand it yourself. - SoM 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By "expand the article" I meant Avengers Forever. I would do it myself but I don't have any knowledge on the subject. --Jamdav86 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Avengers, New Avengers, etc

What is going on????

Why are The New Avengers mixed with the Avengers?

Almost the entire team's different. Roles & Responsibilities are different within the group, the chemistry is different. I can understand someone saying putting it on one page. But it is getting TOOO BIGG!!!!

I actually prefer not merging them. and instead having "Avengers" as the title page with sub-pages linking it to other pages or sub-groups or future groups.

Taking it from someone who is coming to wikipedia for info. looking for avengers. He can go to the Avengers page and find info on them, and IF he/she is interested, can click on another link and find more info about new avengers or west coast info.

Take this approach to somebody like me, who comes on to find info. about the New Avengers.. but still has to trawl through an array of info. about "The Avengers" when I already know it... and that thing isn't continuing anyway. Plus, for the sake of cohesiveness, less info. is posted about the new articles... which means less coverage of new issues.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, go back to separate pages for each major series.

Axcellence 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, go read the discussion and let's not get into this again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The pages should actually be seperated again. Circumstances have changed. We now have irrefutable proof that not only has the title of the comic changed, but the name of the team has changed along with it:

First of all, in the New Avengers One-Shot, Spider-Woman's email address is given as follows: arachnophilia@newavengers.stark.net "newavengers" not "avengers", but if youre not happy believing the one-shot, look at the latest issue of the comic: In New Avengers #15, Captain America unveils the team as "THE NEW AVENGERS". If he was unveiling a team, as he indeed was, he would not devalue them in such a way as to use the adjective 'new'. While 'new' is an adjective, in this instance, as in many others that have appeared in the New Avengers series, this 'New' is also a proper noun. Nowhere does he say they are new Avengers, like was said way back when when the Avengers rota changed to unveil Cap's Kooky Quartet. They are not another new line-up, they are a new team under a new name.

Side-bar: People looking for information on the New Avengers as a team and as a comic book have to trail through a massively over-sized article just to get to it, and what they find is a disappointing sub-sub-sub-heading with very limited information -- limited about the team and limited about the comic. You're completely choking the article and forbidding it to grow. A fresh page linking back to the Avengers would make so much more sense, that way people can choose whether or not they want to actually see the Avengers page.
A final comment -- The current headings that you use are ridiculous; e.g. "History of the Team". Half of the information there has nothing to do with the TEAM and belongs under the publication heading. Editors are clearly prejudiced against the new title and do not want it to grow, keeping it to the barest minimums that don't infact inform of anything, while including unbelievibly tiny and trivial details in the main Avengers article. Also, Ronin's affiliation is listed as New Avengers, not Avengers, so there are clearly others who believe in this difference. KellyClarksonKicks 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to Avengers?

Just noticed the "Avengers redirects here" note at the top of the page, which is accurate. Shouldn't either that be changed to redirect to the disambig, OR this page should be moved to Avengers? - SoM 00:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed "Avengers" to redirect to The Avengers. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The 50's Avengers

What about the 50's Avengers, with members like 3-D man, Gorilla-Man, Venus, Marvel Boy and Human Robot? Shouldn't they be mentioned somewhere?

Mention it her under alternate versions, but put the bulk @ Agents of Atlas, the title of their new miniseries. - SoM 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Avengers animated movies?

Why is there no mention of the two animated direct-to-DVD movies? 75.55.127.185 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there were never two animated direct-to-DVD movies based on The Avengers. Ultimate Avengers. *SIGN* 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Avengers (comics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Impressive: footnotes, broad coverage and out of universe. Wiki-newbie 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avengers_(comics)/Archive_1&oldid=718313548"