Talk:List of Avengers members

Another infiltrator

Need to add Criti Noll-as-Hank Pym, as well as the skrull posing as Mockingbird with the west coast branch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.189.226 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An unforgivable omission

Where's Jarvis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.90.172 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing of D-man's references

Considering that there has been such debate over D-man's status in the past, I would appreciate it if people did not edit and remove references that the "other side" are citing. Even though I have shown that a number of Spshu's "Never Joined" references are irrelevant or just plain wrong, I have left them there so as to not create an "edit war." The most recent incidence of this was particularly nonsensical, as the issue being moved from "Joined Sources" to "Never Joined Sources" was Captain America #349, the issue in which Demolition Man is offered and accepts membership into the Avengers.LobtsterJ (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately Spshu has not given up his quest of disproving D-Man's membership. This is the same edit that he has made several times before, which has always been corrected by another editor of this page. This time, I removed some of the NPOV statements from his edit, but I have left Captain America #349 in the "Never Joined Sources" for now, because I also do not want to start an edit war. If there is a consensus, that the issue where D-Man accepts membership, is an indication of him having status with the team, then the reference should be moved back to the "Joined Sources" side whether Spshu believes that invitation to be official or not. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatey, Spshu does not seem to read (or at least he doesn't respond to) what is going on in the talk section of the article right now. I realize he has his opinion, and there can certainly be differing opinions when dealing with a fictional universe, but his edits are making the article itself look bad. While keeping civil, I do want to note that some of his most recent edits have had, at best, problematic use of the English language, especially the notes section for Firebird, Stingray, and Rage. LobtsterJ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for putting it back solely in the 'joined sources', but honestly most of the 'sources' Spshu uses to show D-Man isn't an official member make little rational sense.SlamBurger (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Spshu's latest edit actually had Captain America #349 as a reference for BOTH sides! At the risk of starting another edit war, I "fixed" the references for D-Man, and left a message on Spshu's talk page. Hopefully he will see that he's not being constructive, by showing up every few months to edit this article, and just changing the things that he doesn't agree with, without any references to back up his edits. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Captain America 349 and the other sources are by the author of CA 349, Mark Gruewald. I previous agreed to have it be a source for both sides, but the notes (mentioning Avengers Annual 17) within that ref supports my side keeps on getting move to supporting D-Man's membership. We keep on have "groundhog day" moments because you can keep up with the logic. Don't forget that Breetvort was completely undermined by the declared problems with the 3rd party Marvel Encyclopedia of which he wrote the article with the greatest mistake, the Alpha Flight article and other mistatements of his. To say my sources are invalid you invalidate the author of CA 349 cause problems with it being a source for the pro-membership. Spshu (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Spshu, if the third-party Marvel Encyclopedia's are inaccurate, why do you use two different entries from it as sources?LobtsterJ (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can Spshu claim that the older Marvel Handbooks are valid sources for D-Man not joining when the most recent Handbook Hardcover has him listed as a member? These Handbooks are official, meaning that the most current form of them is canon and that the older ones are not up-to-date. The most recent volume should always be considered the best sources. Also, how can Spshu list The Marvel Encyclopedia as a source for D-Man not joining? The Avengers article only lists "Key Members" and does not say anything about a complete list. Omission of members from the list in the Encyclopedia doesn't mean that they never joined. Also, just because D-Man's article in the Encyclopedia doesn't say anything about him joining doesn't mean he didn't join. Like with the Moon Knight entry in the Encyclopedia we know that Moon Knight joined even though they do not mention it anywhere in the book. If we were to apply Spshu's logic, every Avenger that the Encyclopedia didn't list as an Avenger should not be listed as an Avenger. This does not make any sense. Ultrabasurero (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you can see some of the frustration over this article that has been felt over the past few years. Not to play pile on Spshu, but he seems to have a particular viewpoint of who should and shouldn't be an Avenger, and he picks and chooses sources to support whatever viewpoint he has regarding a particular character, even going so far as to claim some sources are valid for characters he wants included and invalid for those he doesn't want. Considering that we are dealing with a fictional universe where things are retconned all the time, I agree that the most recent official Marvel Handbook should be the final word on the matter. It is their universe, and they set the rules. If Spshu doesn't agree with a handbook, he is wrong, not the handbook. Take D-Man. It is entirely possible that Mark Gruenwald and the editorial staff did not intend to make him an Avenger with the event of Captain America #349. However, Marvel now considers those events to have made him an Avenger. So he is. End of story. If we are playing by Spshu's rules, many more Avengers will have to be put into questionable, because at some point many of them were are not included in the shoddy "sources" he likes to cite. LobtsterJ (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

LobtsterJ, re: using DK Encyclopedia as a source given its inaccurate, these are the types of source that Wikipedia wants. Additional, it impeaches Tom Brevoort's credibility thus until you remove all your source which where based on work done by Tom Brevoort. Ultrabasurero, Tom Brevoort indicated that he "researched and disected" with Busiek, his base document; therefor Brevoort did not intendent to change the fact of past issues plus it was done in 1999 well after 1994, the end of the West Coast team and past several by-law changes. Failing to take into account the existance of the West Coast team and the by-laws in effect might lead to an incorrect assumption about The Captain ability to make D-Man a member. The DK Marvel Encyclopedia's D-Man article is also used as it would be common sense that some mention of its members joining the Avengers would exist in the Encyclopedia as the Avengers is major team in the Marvel Universe. Thus there is in effect a defacto list in the Encyclopedia which I condensed out (sorry I miss place it). Moon Knight's membership was list in the additional members section of the side bar for the Avengers West Coast article. LobtsterJ, you seem to ignore common sense and the fact that Brevoort's credibility is shot base on you rejection of the DK Marvel Encyclopedia thus all Brevoort based Marvel Handbook. You guys ignore when your 'sources' don't support your conclusions. Spshu (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I still get a kick out of you insisting Tom Breevort isn't credible. The guy who has edited the Avengers books for the past 15 years.SlamBurger (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Additional, it impeaches Tom Brevoort's credibility thus until you remove all your source which where based on work done by Tom Brevoort." Don't take this the wrong way, but I want you to re-read that sentence and then ask yourself if you really have any place editing an encyclopedia. I have reached the point where I literally can't follow your convoluted logic or make sense of your poor writing, spelling errors, and free-form punctuation. LobtsterJ (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because I have to try to distill multiple step arguments down as I have repeated them and repeated them. In is reference to me not using the DK's Marvel Encyclopedia articles as source given its poor quality. -- "Additional, it impeaches Tom Brevoort's credibility thus until you remove all your sources which where based on work done by Tom Brevoort I will not remove mine." The talk page is not the encyclopedia itself. Spshu (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"the fact that Brevoort's credibility is shot base on you rejection of the DK Marvel Encyclopedia thus all Brevoort based Marvel Handbook." Spshu, what does Tom Brevoort have to do with the current incarnations of the Marvel Handbook? He has nothing to do with them. From what I have read, he is only listed in the "Special Thanks". Sorry, but the Marvel Encyclopedia, to me, is a full of errors and poor editing. Right now, we should go with what Marvel's own experts have to say and the main source of this is the current Marvel Handbooks. Also, spshu, it's hard to comprehend what you're trying to argue when it is poorly written. Please try to think out what you're trying to type so we can understand it. What's the point of this discussion if none of us can understand it?Ultrabasurero (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From the wikipedia guidelines: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." Sources 15 and 16 fail this guideline in reference to Demolition Man. Using those two sources as proof that Demolition wasn't in the Avengers does not work since the Encyclopedia does not explicitly state he wasn't part of it. Omissions of facts are not direct support of information.Ultrabasurero (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also use the All-New Official Handbook of the Universe Hardcover Vol. 3 as a reference for DMan joining the Avengers? It says so in his own profile. I would add it, but I think I would mess everything up. Ultrabasurero (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, how do two references of the same publication stack up against each other? I mean like between an older and newer handbook? Does the newer source always take precedence over the older? Ultrabasurero (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultrabasurero, we've been arguing these points with Spshu for literally years at this point. He doesn't seem to look at sources and make a decision based on what the sources show him, he has an idea in his head that he absolutely cannot be wrong and then tries to jam the sources into his worldview whether or not they actually fit(they usually don't, as evidenced by him using sources that actually show D-Man as a member as a source against it, the encyclopedia not specifically listing D-Man as an Avengers member is a good example of this).SlamBurger (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Avengers Assemble, which is one of those "profile on important people" books lists Demolition Man as an inactive member. This is current continuity, and it flat out lists him. He's a member, end of story. Darquis (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Questionable" section

Is anyone else interested in eliminating the Questionable section, and integrating those characters back into the original team section? I know there are some editors of this article, who adamantly argue about the status of certain characters with The Avengers, but at this point were talking about 8 characters here! (Hellcat, Two-Gun Kid, Jocasta, Thing, D-Man, Sandman, Rage, Machine Man). Clearly all of them have had some status with The Avengers at one time or another, and there is just the question of when they might have been given that status. We wouldn't even need to change the notes for most of them, as long as we continue to indicate the conflicting information. I just don't think that there needs to be a separate section for these characters. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be for it. As long as the notes continue to reflect that there are differing opinions. If we went through every reference for every Avenger, I'm sure we could find omissions of characters the people consider 100% Avengers no questions. No need to keep these 8 separate because they are more contested than others LobtsterJ (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't like the 'questionable' section and feel it serves no real purpose. Put them back into the regular listings with notes as needed.SlamBurger (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the section isn't a reason. It serve the purpose that there are reasonable disagreement over a number of characters' status. This section was part of a comprimise made under moderation. Spshu (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love it when actual progress on making this page look and read better gets stalled.SlamBurger (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to make the necessary changes, but I thought it would be best to reach a consensus on the talk page first. I have asked other editors of this article to express their opinions here, and the only person who seems opposed to re-integrating the Questionable section is Spshu. Whether this is because of a "compromise" that was proposed by an administrator, or just because he is the only one that thinks it's necessary, I don't know. If the other editors of this page agree to maintain the questionable nature of certain characters in the main article, without having a separate section for them, please say so. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it pretty ridiculous that the current Marvel Official Handbooks aren't considered because they aren't a third-party source even though they are the best source and most up to date. It seems that Spshu is the only person here that is against Demolition Man being an official member and is using irrational logic to keep his views on the page. To me it seems that Spshu's actions seem like he's claiming ownership of the article. I'm all for reintegrating the Questionable section into the main section. Ultrabasurero (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now, it appears that Sandman and Machine Man could be integrated back into the main article as is. The rest would require additional clarification, which I will try to provide before any elimination of the section is made. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All those remove read like they are absolutely not in any doubt about them being members of the Avengers. You are also making major edit under the disguise of "minor edit". Moving them has changed the context of the sources. Spshu (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Spshu, please don't remove the references to Avengers 305, as it makes clear the status of quite a few Avengers, whatever your personal bias against it is.SlamBurger (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all Spshu, even if you disagree with the edits that I've made, please don't just revert the page to a previous version. You are changing information just because it doesn't agree with your personal POV, which is not helpful or constructive.

Secondly, I must disagree, that moving certain characters from the Questionable section "changed the context of the sources". I went to great lengths to make sure that everyone's references for and against membership remained intact. In most cases I simply reordered them, so that they would still correspond with their order in the References section. The characters that were moved, have all been associated with The Avengers in some capacity, which can be verified by numerous publications, whether you agree with them or not. If there is any question about someone's membership, or when it was given, it can be reflected in the Additional Information column with the proper references. But based on the conversation above, no one else thinks that these characters need a separate "Questionable" section...

And finally, as a registered editor of Wikipedia, it is MY discretion to mark edits as "minor", when little information has been changed. I have always detailed my reason for any edits I make in the edit summary. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is my intention to make this article as accurate as possible, not to fuel some personal agenda. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the section because it was issue 314 not 329 or something like that. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So the following edit where you rip out source against D-Man's Membership isn't changing a thing:

18:08, 2 February 2010 Fortdj33 (talk | contribs) (27,221 bytes) (Removed references to archive page)

It is not your discretion as a editor to mark thing minor when they are not. As they instruct editors how to make a comment only edit to indicate that the edit was not a minor edit. A minor edit (when it shouldn't) indicates that you are trying to the edit past the wiki notification system and is a bad faith edit. Spshu (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Spshu, once again you are twisting events to fit your own personal POV. I have no intention of turning this discussion into a battle between you and me, but since you have singled me out, please allow me to explain...

First of all, regarding what constitutes a minor edit, I am not bound by YOUR opinion of what is minor and what is not. The edit that you provided a link to, was NOT marked as a minor edit. If I make an edit where little information is changed, or I am simply rearranging information to make it more understandable, as a registered editor of Wikipedia I have the option to mark it as minor, whether you agree or not. This is not an attempt to get the edit "past the wiki notification system", it is just my opinion as to the nature of the edit.

As far as the references in question, they were found to be invalid in your previous discussion of D-Man's status (see Talk:List of Avengers members/Archive 1). No one else had removed them since then, so I took the liberty of doing so. I would also suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Verifiability, for why I removed those particular references.

I have nothing against you personally Spshu. But your edits are constantly being reverted, because of your refusal to accept facts that disagree with your opinion, even when they are furnished by an administrator, or determined by a consensus of editors on this page. I maintain that I have done my best to edit this article as accurately as possible, and I have provided the proper references to back up my edits. If anyone other than Spshu feels differently, please let me know. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

These were not any more invalid then any of your source that you hold on to like Avengers 305. And additional that you lied when you posted here your intent not to remove the sources: "We wouldn't even need to change the notes for most of them, as long as we continue to indicate the conflicting information." In removing them and self proclaiming the invalid, you are saying the writer of Captain America 349 is not a valid source. You are the one refusing to see the fact that Breevort indicated that he "research" the basis of your sources; there never intented to change what Gruenwald wrote. Spshu (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Spshu, I honestly don't understand why you are getting so worked up over this. This talk page is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the List of Avengers members article, but you are trying to blame me for your insecurities, because I was bold enough to make the edits that were called for. I am sorry if you feel differently, but the other editors of this page have told you for some time that your logic is flawed. I can address your accusations point by point if you wish, but I have no desire to continue arguing with you, because you cannot be polite and avoid personal attacks, and you just can't handle any facts that don't fit your POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Fortdj33.SlamBurger (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New/Mighty Avengers

I feel that splitting these articles into their own pages isn't good. They're just stubs and the lists are going to be getting any larger due to the reformation of a single Avengers team after Siege. Also, the current OHOTMU hardcovers lists both of these teams as official teams. Ultrabasurero (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of these lists being separate, but it might be best to wait until we see how the new Avengers title affects the main list of current/former Avengers. The New/Mighty lists could always be integrated into their respective articles, if they will no longer be expanded. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No one else wanted them to be a part of the main Avengers lineup when I made the lineup part of the regular avengers members. SO that's why i changed it.[[1]] and [[2]] Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the New and Mighty Avengers sections should be merged back in. Before Dark Reign, the Marvel Handbooks listed the members of either the outlaw team and government team as "Avengers". With membership in either of those factions, they were included in the roster for "Avengers". Also in the comics, the members of each group refer to themselves as "Avengers". The only Avengers group that shouldn't be part of the bigger list are Osborn's Avengers. Ultrabasurero (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Firebird and Moon Knight

I've updated some of the references in this article, for characters that used to be "questionable", because there are several books related to the original Avengers title, which list issue numbers agreeing on when each member joined. But there are not many references for issues of The West Coast Avengers, and I think that the issues where Firebird and Moon Knight joined need to be modified. Please help come to a consensus, by offering your opinion on the status of Firebird and Moon Knight, based on the following info:

• Firebird was NOT given status with the team in West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #9 as indicated, since sources show that she was passed over by Hawkeye in favor of The Thing. But she WAS given status with the WCA prior to Avengers vol. 1 #305, as indicated in the Avengers Casebook (and every Avengers roster since then). In examining issues of West Coast Avengers, she returned to assist the team as Espirita in West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #21, and was with them through West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #24, where Hawkeye says "we finally found some new members for our team!", and Espirita, Doctor Pym and Moon Knight are all present. This carried into West Coast Avengers Annual #2, where Espirita and Moon Knight joined a combined East Coast/West Coast team. Which one of those issues would best describe when she was given status with the WCA?
• Moon Knight also has conflicting information, since the Avengers Casebook says that he joined in West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #21 along with Doctor Pym, yet the Avengers Log lists his first appearance as a member in West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #33. In examining issues of West Coast Avengers, the cover of issue #21 spotlights Doctor Pym and Moon Knight as new Avengers, yet there is Hawkeye's statement above in issue #24, and then Moon Knight continues as a West Coast Avenger until issue #33, where Hawkeye officially inducts him as a new Avenger. Doesn't that means Moon Knight joined in issue #21, and gained full membership in issue #33?

I propose that the article be changed, to reflect that Moon Knight joined in West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #21 (June 1987), with a reference to his status in issue #33, and that Firebird joined in either West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #24 (Sept 1987) or West Coast Avengers Annual #2 (1987), maybe gaining reserve status in Avengers vol. 1 #305. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as Firebird goes. The Cross Time adventure started (WCA 17) when the West Coast Avengers went to ask her to join up. She turned them down at the end of the storyline (WCA 24). Tom Brevoort indicates that Firebird being listed as a member was "a mistake" from John Bryne and/or Mackie that he would continue (one of fact impeaching his credibility).

Moon Knight, I would go with WCA 24. WCA 33 just marks the end of his probationary period if read in full. Probably the writer just has Hawkeye cooked up an "induction" as an excuse for a cook out or some such thing. Spshu (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Spshu, I agree with you about Moon Knight. WCA #33 was probably more ceremonial than anything. The roster in Avengers #300 also lists WCA #21 as when he became an active Avenger, so that's probably more accurate, since that issue has more than one reference. As for Firebird, I don't think that her membership is a mistake. Firebird had solo stories in Avengers Spotlight #24 (Nov 1989) and Avengers West Coast Annual #4 (1989), which both took place AFTER her appearance in Avengers vol. 1 #305 (July 1989). If we assume that Firebird received her status before those issues, does anyone know of a reference to her being an Avenger between West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #24 and Avengers vol. 1 #305? Fortdj33 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Further information on Firebird - She also made an appearance in West Coast Avengers vol. 2 #25 (Oct 1987), where she says goodbye to Doctor Pym. This takes place AFTER West Coast Avengers Annual #2, and I can't find another appearance of Firebird, before she answers Captain America's call in Avengers vol. 1 #305 (July 1989). Presumably, she was given reserve status in one of these issues, even though she chose at that time not to stay with the team. That leads me to believe that she was either given status in WCA Annual #2, and then chose to leave in WCA #25, or was called in by mistake in Avengers #305, and given reserve status at that time, just like everyone else who was present and didn't join the primary team. Which is it? Fortdj33 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Heroic Age Team

If Spider-Man and Wolverine are on the cover of Avengers #1, they should be considered part of the team. If this is because there's a Spider-Man promo for New Avengers, it doesn't mean he can't be on both teams. Luke Cage will be in both New Avengers and Thunderbolts, so Spider-Man can be both on Avengers and New Avengers and in turn Wolverine can be put on the team as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is all true but without explicit verification spelling out their involvement with the team it runs into original research.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is verification on Spider-Man though. John Romita Jr. confirmed he would be drawing Spider-Man in the book; I just need to find the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the reference so it can be properly cited. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Best I could find: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=306021&highlight=John+Romita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We tend not to go by just cover, teaser or promotional images as they can often be unclear or misleading. We don't have a deadline and can afford to wait for the actual comics to be revealed or an interview where the creators discuss the new line-up. (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

2¢ here... We can definitely wait for the comics to go on sale. We aren't a news site, nor are we a rumor/spoiler site. And if the articles we have were more geared towards real world context, then it it might be worth noting the hype an hoopla in the "Publication history" of the character articles. But even that needs to be looked at closely. - J Greb (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with J Greb. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now Spider-Man and Wolverine are also on the cover to issue 2. I should point out Ms. Marvel was added to the member list on the New Avengers Members page based on her being on the cover to New Avengers Vol. 2 #1. I thought we weren't supposed to speculate based on covers, but if she's added there, why can't Spider-Man and Wolverine be added to the regular Avengers list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As everyone has pointed out, we can afford to wait until the official roster has been announced. I removed the speculation because of the comic book cover, from the List of New Avengers members article. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen Avengers vol. 4 #1 yet, but based on the list that was just added, are we to believe that every character that appears in the first issue is on the active team? It looks like all the characters that have already been solicited to be part of New Avengers, Secret Avengers, Young Avengers and Avengers Academy, are listed as joining the team in Avengers vol. 4 #1... Fortdj33 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they all are asked by Steve Rogers and accept with the notable exception of Wonder Man who turns him down. From what I gather some members will belong on multiple teams.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the preview of issue #1, and I understand where you're coming from. But just because a character reacts positively in one panel, does not mean that they are going to be one of the primary members of the team. Brian Michael Bendis has even said in an interview that "The Avengers are: Thor, Spider-Man, Hawkeye, Wolverine, Captain America, Spider-Woman, and Iron Man." Maria Hill will lead the team, but that doesn't make her an Avenger, any more than Victoria Hand was a member of the Dark Avengers. Plus, there's the fact that most of the characters listed as "joining" in Avengers vol. 4 #1, have already been members of the original team, so there's no need to list them a second time. Sorry, but I think that listing every character in Avengers vol. 4 #1 as an Avenger is jumping the gun a little bit. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, if you see fit to undue my edits than so be it, though I wouldnt say that Victoria Hand was team leader of the Dark Avengers. Also since the original team disbanded wouldnt you say that all previous members had to "join" this new team? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Going back to Maria Hill, this is a different situation than Victoria Hand's relationship with the Dark Avengers. The Dark Avengers fell under the umbrella of H.A.M.M.E.R. of which Victoria was deputy director so she had some authority over the Dark Avengers but was not a part of the team herself. In Maria's case she is specificly appointed "team leader" of the Avengers by Steve Rogers. Also as seen in Dark Avengers #16, Victoria Hand keeps her position as Roger's number two. I guess only time will tell of Maria's actual role. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Victoria Hand was a bad example, but I see her, Maria Hill and Sharon Carter being in more administrative roles during the Heroic Age, rather than actual team members. As you said, only time will tell. As far as the discussion above, shouldn't we include all the characters that are new to the Avengers in this article? I tried to modify the Heroic Age section to only include new members (since Thor, Iron Man, Hawkeye and Spider-Man were at one time members of the original team), but someone deleted the addition of Valkyrie, Ant-Man and Nova from Secret Avengers, even though they refer to themselves as Avengers in issue #1 (again, Steve Rogers, Black Widow, Beast, War Machine and Moon Knight are already listed in this article). Where do we draw the line between listing entire rosters, and just listing the characters that have been added to the Avengers as part of the Heroic Age? Fortdj33 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier the Avengers disbanded and this is a brand new formation so Thor, Iron Man, Hawkeye and Spider-Man should be readded as starting over, not as recruits since every is new to this NEW team. Also why would you include members of the Secret Avengers (same goes for the West Coast Avengers and New Avengers), the focus here should be placed on the main team. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a new section to distinguish the current team and distinguished the Heroic Age as recruits though I disagree with it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a separate section for the current roster, in addition to the list of everyone who has been part of the Avengers, is redundant and unnecessary. Current team members can better be shown by information in the Notes section. The Avengers have disbanded many times before, and their roster is constantly changing. The current format of this article was determined by a consensus here on the talk page before it was implemented, and it reflects the Avengers organization as a whole, based on the current Avengers Assemble Handbook. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the the roster is constantly changing but so can the section. The current roster needs to be distinguished to as the current format is too long to quickly pull this information. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In other media

Anyone else dislike the section that has been added for team rosters from the animated series and films? I'm wondering if it needs to be cleaned up, or removed altogether? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care for it either.SlamBurger (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again...

As a monitor of this article, I have strived to maintain the information here as accurately as possible. I have also provided numerous references to back up my edits. But, as regular readers of this talk page know, the user Spshu has constantly had issues with the information in this article, because it does not agree with his POV.

Unfortunately, every time he is proven wrong, he disappears for a couple months, and then returns to change everything that he doesn't agree with, even though that information has been maintained by other editors for months. In some cases, he even disregards certain references, claiming that they support his POV, instead of the information that is presented. His POV statements also end up in the notes for the characters that he doesn't think belong on the list...

I am asking the other editors of this page, to please help me maintain the integrity of this article, by once again pointing out the errors in Spshu's logic. Thank you in advance, for taking the time to read this statement, and for helping me to keep this article as accurate as possible. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is something he has done quite often in the past. Waiting for things to quiet down and then coming in and making all the edits he thinks are appropriate. I haven't had as much time to dedicate to this page lately as I have had in the past and your vigilance is appreciatedSlamBurger (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spshu/Sandbox1Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He changed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spshu/Sandbox10Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I also added a reference for D-Man being an Avenger from OHOTMU HC Vol.3 Ultrabasurero (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I also added references from OHOTMU Avengers 2004 & 2005.Ultrabasurero (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Britain (Braddock)

Where should we put Captain Britain? In Age of Heroes #1 Braddock agrees to be part of the Avengers. Ultrabasurero (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's too soon to tell how much certain characters will be involved with The Avengers. As pointed out above, there are 25 heroes that Steve Rogers recruits in Avengers #1, yet the main team (for at least the first story arc) has been confirmed as Thor, Spider-Man, Hawkeye, Wolverine, Captain America, Spider-Woman, and Iron Man. We may eventually need to have a section for characters that are new to the Avengers, because of their inclusion in one of the other super hero teams created during the Heroic Age. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Reintegration of New/Mighty Avengers into list based on newest Avengers Handbook

Marvel's official viewpoint of who is an Avenger is shown through the Official Handbooks. The New/Mighty rosters are both considered Avengers factions. The newest article in the Avengers Assemble Handbook has all the pre-Initiative New Avengers recruits as official members (Wolverine, Echo, etc.). All Initiative-Dark Reign era recruits such as Captain America (Barnes), Iron Fist, Doctor Strange, etc. are listed as honorary members. All the Mighty Avengers recruits such as Ares, Stature, Amadeus Cho, and Vision (Jonas) are listed as official members as well. By splitting New/Mighty members in their own articles, there is a big gap of nothing between 2004-2010 and makes it seem that New/Mighty members are not considered members. Ultrabasurero (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what Sean McQuaid, one of the OHOTMU writers had to say:

"We consulted editorial on how to classify characters who had only served with the outlaw version of the Avengers, and editorial's decision was to count them as honoraries now that the Avengers are one big happy united family again.

That being said, any of the "outlaw" members serving on the new post-SIEGE Avengers teams will be upgrading to full membership, so it's possible that some or all of these guys won't be strictly honorary for long.

None of this affected outlaw members who also had a history with more formal versions of the team, like Wolverine, Spider-Man, Cage, Barton, Mockingbird, Ms. Marvel or Echo. -Sean" Ultrabasurero (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Then in keeping with the format of this article, there should probably be a section or two between "Post-Heroes Return" and "Heroic Age", that lists the characters added to The Avengers during the pre/post Civil War and Dark Reign periods. I would argue that the Dark Avengers are separate, and should not be included. And as mentioned by Sean McQuaid, there is no need to relist characters who have already been part of the Avengers. Therefore, I don't think that the entire List of New Avengers members or List of Mighty Avengers members needs to be reintegrated. Based on the above information, it looks like only the following characters would need to be added:

* Luke Cage, Wolverine, Sentry and Echo/Ronin - Official members of the New Avengers pre-Civil War

* Doctor Strange, Iron Fist, Captain America (Bucky), Spider-Woman, Jewel - Honorary members, due to joining the New Avengers post-Civil War/Dark Reign

* Ares - Official member of the Mighty Avengers post-Civil War

* Amadeus Cho, Stature, Vision (Iron Lad) - Honorary members, due to joining the Mighty Avengers during Dark Reign

Wolverine, Captain America (Bucky) and Spider-Woman could then have updated notes, to show their current status with the main Avengers team. All of the other characters that were members of the New/Mighty Avengers, are already listed in this article. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Also, Valkyrie and Ant-Man should be added somewhere because they care part of the Secret Avengers, which is an official Avengers team, but not publicly known. Ultrabasurero (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers handbook profile lists Amadeus Cho, Stature, and Vision as full-fledged members and not honorary members. They count Pym's team as an official team.Ultrabasurero (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article lists the following as "Inactive Members". (There are no members listed as active due to the massive restructuring at the time). - Arachne, Beast, Black Knight, Black Panther, Black Widow, Luke Cage, Captain America (Rogers), Amadeus Cho, Crystal, Darkhawk, Demolition Man, Echo, Falcon, Firebird, Firestar, Hellcat, Human Torch (Hammond), Iron Man, Jocasta, Justice, Lionheart, Living Lightning, Mantis, Mockingbird, Moondragon, Ms. Marvel, Photon (Rambeau), Quasar, Quicksilver, Rage, Ronin, Sersi, She-Hulk, Silverclaw, Spider-Man, Starfox, Stature, Stingray, Sub-Mariner, Thor, 3-D Man (Garrett), Tigra, Two-Gun Kid, USAgent, Vision (Jonas), War Machine, Wasp (Pym), Wolverine, Wonder Man.

For former members: Ant-Man (Lang), Ares, Dr. Druid, Gilgamesh, Hercules, Hulk, Invisible Woman, Iron Man ("Teen Tony"), Jack of Hearts, Machine Man, Mr. Fantastic, Moon Knight, Sandman, Scarlet Witch, Sentry, Swordsman (DuQuesne), Thing, Thunderstrike, Vision (Shade), Wasp (Van Dyne).

For honorary members - Aleta, Moira Brandon, Captain America (Barnes), Captain Marvel (Mar-Vell), Charlie-27, Deathcry, Dr. Strange, Iron Fist, Jewel, Rick Jones, Magdalene, Major Victory, Marrina, Martinex, Masque (bio-duplicate), Nikki, Spider-Woman (Drew), Starhawk, Swordsman (Jarvert), Whizzer, Yellowjacket (DeMara), Yondu. Ultrabasurero (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultrabasurero, thank you for providing that info. I tried to add Valkyrie, Ant-Man and Nova from the Secret Avengers once already, but it was reverted. In the interest of being bold, here are the changes that I propose to make, to reflect the above information:

New Avengers (2005) - Section includes issue numbers and notes for Luke Cage, Wolverine, Sentry and Echo/Ronin

Post-Civil War/Dark Reign (2007-2009) - Includes info for Ares, Captain America (Bucky), Spider Woman, Amadeus Cho, Stature and Vision (Iron Lad).

Dr. Strange, Iron Fist and Jewel could then be added to the Honorary section, and the Heroic Age section would include Valkyrie, Ant-Man and Nova from the Secret Avengers. If no one objects, I will be happy to make the necessary changes, if someone can provide a reference that properly cites the handbook information above. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You can click here to check out the proposed additions. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks great. I'm assuming all active Avengers on any of the current teams will be bolded. I don't know yet how Avengers Academy is going to be treated. Are the instructors considered active members?Ultrabasurero (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I plan on leaving off the bold for current members for now, since the lineup of the Avengers is constantly changing. Good question about Avengers Academy though. From what I've seen, it look like all the instructors are already former members, except for Speedball. We should probably wait until those instructors are referenced somewhere as active Avengers, before we add them to this list. Same goes for the Young Avengers, who all made an appearance in Avengers vol. 4 #1. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since I don't have a copy of the latest Avengers handbook, I hope that someone is prepared to list it as a reference, or some of these changes could be challenged by unregistered editors. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

From the OHOTMU HC #1 to the current Avengers Assemble handbook, Jocasta has been moved from Honorary section to the main section. I know the status change occurred in the Dark Reign issues of Mighty Avengers but don't know which one she got full membership.Ultrabasurero (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as Jocasta, she was with Hank Pym from the beginning of that incarnation of the Avengers, so I would consider her membership to start at MA #21. Also, the Avengers handbook lists "Teen Tony" among former members, not with the honoraries. Marvel seems to count him as a real member, so I suggest he be moved from the honorary section as well. I really like the way this article has been modified, the breaking up of things into New, Mighty, Secret etc. didn't make much sense to me. Any thoughts of incorporating WCA members into the main body similarly chronologically instead of having them under their own separate heading? And just as an afterthought, I find it odd Marvel are considering Doctor Strange and Iron Fist honoraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LobtsterJ (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the necessary change to Jocasta, but I would leave Teen Tony in the Honorary section for now, until we have a definitive reference listing him as a full member. I have a feeling that Dr. Strange, Iron Fist and Jewel will eventually need to be moved to the Heroic Age section, after New Avengers starts up again. And as far as integrating the West Coast Avengers, I would be for it, as long as we can determine which characters were added after Inferno, and during the UN Charter period. A separate section might still be needed for Mockingbird, War Machine, Thing, Moon Knight and Firebird, since they were added to the team specifically by Hawkeye as West Coast chair. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OHOTMU HC#1 lists Teen Tony as a former member. Under the Iron Man "Teen Tony" entry in HC#5, his group affiliation is listed as "Avengers" without the honorary, and as previously listed above, the Avengers Assemble handbook has his listed as a former member. That's 3 separate sources with Teen Tony as a full member. Ultrabasurero (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. As far as the "other teams" section, I was looking at it and wondering what criteria is being used and how it might be cleaned up a bit. Great Lakes and The Resistance are mentioned, but not Dark Avengers or YA. I suggest all 4 teams are listed in that section, with a paragraph like the one GLA has briefly explaining their origin and relation to the actual Avengers organization and then a link to their own page. I don't see a need to list the roster of these teams under the listing of Avengers proper, but it might be useful to clarify what other teams used the Avengers name unofficially. Perhaps a line under the Other teams heading stating it is a section for unofficial or unsanctioned teams that assumed the Avengers name. LobtsterJ (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Roster

In its current format this information is buried throught the note sections of the article which makes its difficult for the average reader to quickly obtain. I propose that this information be distinguished in its own section while maintaing the characters recuritment history as currently detailed. Is this redudant? Maybe, but I feel the notablity of this information out wieghs its redudancy. Also I realize that Avengers memberhip is a revolving door and will require constant updating but this again show the need of a seperate section to see who is currently on the main team. Thoughts? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, thank you for your help in keeping this article as accurate as possible. As stated above, I believe that having a separate section for the current roster is redundant and unnecessary. This article has always been about the Avengers organization as a whole, and the current Avengers Assemble Handbook considers former members of the West Coast Avengers, New Avengers and Mighty Avengers to be part of that organization. Given the chronological nature of this article, I still think that it's better to show current team members by information in the Notes column, with new information being added as necessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

At the very least can we do this to make it stand out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be all sorts of problems which make this confusing - the current members are in bold, but this also includes the members of the Secret Avengers, who are a different team in a different title. There is also one team in other versions all bold. I think the only solution is to remove the bold.

Now what do you do with the information? Your problem is you want to avoid WP:DATED information but if you look at the lists of titles from companies people do try to track the current ones, however, this falls apart if the active editor disappears. It is tricky and worth throwing open to WT:CMC for more input on how we'd like all these kinds of articles run. I think as it is an actively edited page we could get away with a "current roster" table but we'd also need a separate "Secret Avengers" one too.

Looking at others, like List of Justice League members I am unsure if that is better as they don't include the Big Seven in the lists (although they do mention them at the top of each new line-up which could confuse the casually skimming reader. (Emperor (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Something to chew on... WP:MOSBOLD has changed to the point where using bold text to identify the "current whatever" isn't acceptable. And there are some of the corpywriter and MoS watchdogs who have been de-bolding "current code name holders" and "current members". Looking at that we are going to re-evaluate how we are treating this information.

To be honest, I've never been a fan of the long format. If we've got distinct eras, then list to full roster for that period and denote comings and goings. Yes, we wind up with Stark, Rogers, Thor, Pym, etc listed multiple times, but that is preferable to disjointed information.

- J Greb (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about leaving the current members of the main Avengers team in bold, with notes and references as to when they joined, and just removing the bold from the characters in the Secret Avengers? Any characters who have been added to the Avengers, because of their inclusion in a new Avengers team, could then have their own table as a sub-section of the Heroic Age section. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As for bolding... let me repeat myself: The general MoS is that bold text is not to be used in that manner.

The idea of putting in a "joined/left" notation is to simplify long sections that saw multiple characters come and go multiple times.

As for "side" teams... are we going to break them down by "in" universe naming? If so, I believe we'd have very few side lists. If not, it falls under breaking out the "publication gimmicks", which would be a separate sections within this list.

- J Greb (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I like J Greb's idea but I understand that defining specific eras could prove to be difficult. Perhaps we can bold current members and make seperate tables for the main and affiliated teams.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair we should look at points where the team was disbanded and reformed first. That does present some "natural" breaks. After that we'd be looking for splits based on secondary sources and possibly publication "gimmicks" ("Heroes Reborn" and "Heroes Return" for example). Once that is in place it's easy enough to point infoboxes at the relevant section.

As for bolding... let me repeat myself: The general MoS is that bold text is not to be used in that manner.

- J Greb (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As it is now, the chronological listing is already broken into pieces by events (Post-Inferno, Post-Heroes Return, Post-Civil War, etc.). This article is supposed to be a list of everyone who has ever been an Avenger, and it makes more sense as an encyclopedia entry, if it's written in a non-universe style. Whether we continue to bold current members or not, I don't see the advantage of characters having multiple entries, for every time that they joined/left the team. If we provide links to the Avengers article, or the Avengers navigation template, that should be sufficient for anyone looking for just the current roster. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Realistically? It provides a reference point. In all honesty a "List of Avengers members" can be boiled down to just an alphabetic list of the character names and still be encyclopedic. But that is of little use beyond just being a list. If the list moves a step beyond that to sorting/grouping/segregation by "era" or "team", which is where we currently are, a layer of usefulness is added. Among the things that layer does is:

• Allow a user of the encyclopedia to see what characters Marvel was using as "Avengers" at a given time.
• Allow links from story arc, publication, and team infoboxes to the most relevant character set.

Both of those are circumvented if the list is abridged to only those characters that don't appear in a previous section.

Also something to keep in mind: The "current" roster has been influx for at least the past 5 years, and that includes "just joined"/"just left" as well as "active"/"inactive"/"reserve"/"'once-a-member'"/etc. Aiming for brevity and not edit warring over the infobox is another purpose this article serves.

- J Greb (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

J Greb, I understand where you are coming from, but I think we're getting away from the original intention of this discussion. The issue here is how best to display the current roster of The Avengers, and I don't think that revamping the format of the entire article is necessary. Other lists such as List of Justice League members and List of X-Men members have been able to reflect the current status of its characters, without having to resort to a separate section for each roster. With all due respect, I think that your proposed changes would turn this article into more of a "History of the Avengers", rather than just a list of characters who have joined the team. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the JL and X lists have the same issue: The bolding is subject to removal as contrary to MoS.

Beyond that, the last thing I'm suggesting is to change this into a "history" article. What I'm suggesting is in the vein of List of Doom Patrol members - descrete sections with short and consice explanation of the period covered, a chronological list of the characters based on when they appeared as a member of the team in that period, minimal notes, and what closed out the period. Given that the Avengers have been in print as an active team for ~50 years, the easy breaks are going to fall on the "easy" points - Avengers (1963-1996), West Coast Avengers (1984-c.1996), Avengers of "Heroes Reborn" (1996-1997), Avengers after the "Return" (1998-2004), Avengers from "New" and "Mighty" (2005-2009), Avengers under Osborn (2009), and Avengers from "'Heroic Age'" and "Secret". - J Greb (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While the format of List of Doom Patrol members may work for that article, even that example uses bold to indicate current members. If there is a consensus to remove the bold for current members of this article (where another unregistered editor has just added it to New Avengers members), I am OK with that. But I don't think that the Avengers organization as a whole falls into "easy" breaks as indicated above. The Post-Heroes Return era by itself, would include almost every hero who had been an Avenger up until that time. In my opinion, this article should remain a chronological list of characters that have been Avengers, and the "history" of the Avengers would be better served by the Avengers (comics) article. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points Fortdj33 makes. This should be a chronological list of who joined the Avengers. If bolded names to denote active members isn't right anymore, then maybe check marks or something. I feel that there shouldn't be a section for each different roster. Doing this would duplicate many members over and over. As for the "main" Avengers team. I feel that the comics don't address who is the "main" team. I feel that readers are just assigning "Avengers" to be the "main" team, but I feel that each book is just a different sub-group dealing with different subject matter: A-vengers = worldwide stuff, New = street level, Secret = spy/undercover. The writers for the Marvel Handbooks have stated that membership in either the Avengers, New, or Secret groups is Avengers membership. Also, per the Marvel Handbook, Osborn's Avengers are not regarded as Avengers members. They are listed under "Avengers (Osborn's)" and are not included in the main Avengers article.Ultrabasurero (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I said that Jewel and Iron Fist are not Avengers but are in New Avengers, and Maria Hill is on the team because of Steve Rogers. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been established that all current members of the main team, New Avengers and Secret Avengers are considered to be Avengers. And although some people have included Maria Hill, Victoria Hand and Sharon Carter as members on other websites, I don't think that the liaisons for each team have been confirmed anywhere as members. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 seperate teams, each doing different things. Maria Hill, Victoria Hand and Sharon Carter each get involved with their team and worked with them. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this article is about the Avengers organization as a whole, and a consensus has not been reached about the role of the liaisons with each team. And reverting someone's edits a second time before a consensus has been reached, is against the etiquette of WP:BRD. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maria Hill and Sharon Carter have been shown working on their teams and Luke Cage welcomed Victoria Hand to his team. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve Roger appointed Maria Hill to "Team Leader", and with no further explanation of that title, we can only assume that the title means what it has always traditionally meant. Sharon Carter by all accounts is just another member of the Secret Avengers, her position has not been defined no more than any other member of team. So calling her a liaison seems to be OR in my opinion. Victoria Hand's position with the New Avengers is clear. In a letter from Steve Rogers to Luke Cage he stated that she is NOT to interfere but to help facilitate their work. This is definitely a supportive liaison position. However as I have stated before as all these titles are still new I have no problem waiting to see how these roles fill out. Remember there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong, in the prolouge of issue 2 of the Secret Avengers, Ed Brubaker refers to Sharon Carter as the "team's handler".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Leader", "Handler", "Liaison"...Whatever their titles are, I still say that Maria Hill, Victoria Hand and Sharon Carter are not considered to be actual members of the Avengers, anymore than Jarvis, Henry Peter Gyrich, or any OTHER non-superhero person who has worked with the team. For now, those three women are listed in the Heroic Age section, until a definitive reference is produced that proves they are not actual members. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Leader means to lead the group, you know the one in charge. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the world "leader" means. But as pointed out above, the prologue of Secret Avengers #2 defined Sharon Carter's role with the team. Since there are no references for the current roster, other than the comic books themselves, I should point out that the prologue of Avengers #2 lists the members as "Wolverine, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Thor, Captain America, Spider Woman and Hawkeye". Nowhere on that page, does it mention Maria Hill as a member of the team. Again, she has been included in the Heroic Age section of this article to prevent an edit war, but as soon as there is a reference that defines her role with the team, that section will need to be modified. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

On her page it says that Maria has been appointed by Captain Steve Rogers to lead the new team of Avengers. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that the justification that other non superheros who have worked with the Avengers were never considered team members necessarily works. For example, were any of these non superheroes active in the field, or taking an active role in leading the team? And what defines Maria Hill as "not a superhero" at this point? I think Maria Hill should be in, and Victoria Hand and Sharon Carter not, but as mentioned - no deadline so let's wait and see. Darquis (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Swordsman membership

I saw the roster list had mistakenly cited Avengers 19 as the point where Swordsman joins the team (they actually turn him down in that issue), so I corrected it to issue 20 (when he tricks the group into letting him join), but I notice another user has repeatedly undone this edit, switching back to the incorrect 19 listing. The user cites older reference materials like Avengers Casebook, but older materials sometimes contain errors corrected in more recent reference works, as is the case here. For the actual status of Swordsman in Avengers 19-20, consult the original comics, or more recent reference works such as the OHotMU A-Z Vol. 1 hardcover (2008), the Avengers Assemble handbook (2010) and the Avengers Spotlight one-shot (also 2010). All of the above clearly indicate that Swordsman joined in 20, not 19.

Sfmcquaid (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers Casebook and Avengers Log both show that Swordsman tried to infiltrate the team in Avengers #19, but was not officially made a member until issue #20. The Official Index to the Avengers vol 2. #1 also confirms that Swordsman became a member in issue #20. The edits were reverted, because the references for his infiltration and membership had been removed. If the Official Handbook or Avengers Assemble One shot have additional information that contradicts this, please add them to the article as references, before removing referenced material. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got no objection to retaining some reference to the Swordsman's activity in 19. "Applied" would be a better word than "Infiltrated" regarding 19, though, because he doesn't succeed in infiltrating anything during issue 19; they reject him, and they fight him when he doesn't take the hint. He doesn't actually sneak his way into the group until the next issue. Sfmcquaid (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Honorary

I notice a lot of characters being added to the honorary section (Flux, Skaar, Prince of Orphans, Brother Voodoo, Shang-chi) some of whom have been listed as members before? Who is making these decisions? Based on what info? LobtsterJ (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Marvel NOW! members

hey as we know this article only include those members which are members of official team of avengers that is why "new avengers" members were not included after civil war. so now i want to ask is that why in marvel now section members of "new avengers" and "secret avengers" are listed??? because it has been said that "secret avengers" will be a s.h.i.e.l.d team and even members will have no knowledge that they are part of this covert team so this means this is not official avengers team. and now "new avengers" is also yet not said to be an official team as it has been said that this will be a night type book. so we should not include those members especially in this article. i'm removing those. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard not to notice, but apparently there aren't people that police this page. Someone (obviously) has added and keeps adding Abyss, StarBrand, Ex Nihilo, and Nightmask to the Marvel Now roster and apparently this happened in some avengers issue last december, but these four are clearly not members and with any other avengers membership websites these characters are never mentioned. So, will someone set this page straight, and what of the A.I. team? Thanks! 24.9.69.254 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Piped links to character articles

Regarding this edit, what should be done in cases like this, where a link is piped away from an article that one might expect? Is it a violation of WP:EGG and if so what is the best way to handle it?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The current style seems good enough for me. I was going to suggest following the format for the Dark Avengers (when Bullseye was dressing like Hawkeye, among others) but they're not listed here for some reason. As is, it clearly shows who was on the roster, who was under the mask, and links to the character's article. It'll probably raise eyebrows for readers unaware of they whys and wherefores behind the identity, but it'd be awkward to detail that here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that since all the other characters in the list are linked in the Character column, it looks out of place for Spider-Man to be formatted differently. I don't see the problem with linking Otto's name with Spider-Man in the Marvel NOW section, since other characters like Ant-Man, Manifold, Red Hulk, Venom, Quake, etc. contain piped links to articles with the character's name in the title. Maybe as a compromise, the second Spider-Man entry could link to information about Superior Spider-Man, rather than linking to Otto Octavius' name, but there should be no misunderstanding when the character's real name is right there in the Real Name column next to the link. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since the table is sections "Codename | Real name" it isn't much of an EGG - reading the table you should have an exact idea where the link will go. That is short of creating a single purpose redirect at Spider-Man (Otto Octavius) (Which I wouldn't recommend...) It may be worth adding a not that it's Otto's soul in Peter's body though... - J Greb (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Infiltrators

An IP editor has insisted on adding information to the Infiltrators section that I do not believe to be relevant to this list, so I am asking for any interested editors to weigh in. The issue is with two characters: Loki, and Superior Spider-Man.

The former definitely infiltrated the team in the pages of Mighty Avengers. The questions with Loki are: in what issue was he actually revealed to be an infiltrator, should there be any mention of him being offered formal membership (since he turned it down), and is he considered the same character that is currently affiliated with the Young Avengers?

With the current version of Spider-Man, it is clear that he is considered a member of the main Avengers team, despite the fact that no one knows it is Otto Octavius in Peter Parker's body. Does this mean that he is an infiltrator? Should the character even be listed separately at all, or should we just update the notes for Spider-Man in the UN Charter section?

Of course this is all arbitrary, but I think it's important that we come to a consensus, before including information in the article that could be misleading. Thoughts? Fortdj33 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)