Talk:Young Avengers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Big Ugly Boxes

Do we really need them? You know? Those ones near the bottom of the page where plot synopses should be... Why don't we get rid of them and simply update when there's some actual information to update? It just makes the page look very untidy...


I have tentatively removed the Cleanup warning, but all I've really done is reorganise what was already there. Would anyone who's actually reading the title like to add more detail? Lokicarbis 04:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is in desperate need of some cleaning up! I've just been working on the synopsis for the first storyline and it was quite some work! What does the word 'thay' even mean? -- Avengers fan 11:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It means User:Brown Shoes22 has been loose again. If you feel like more cleanup work, go through Special:Contributions/Brown Shoes22 - SoM 16:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
When I saw you had directed me to User:Brown Shoes22's contributions page I thought you were just being mean! Lol! Well, now I'm not so sure... Asgardian was in desperate need of a cleanup! One entire paragraph of his bio was repeated twice in two different sections! (The page was actually redirectedto Wiccan when I was uploading his image! Lol!) -- Avengers fan 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
More cleaning up... I've condensed bios for the founding members (especially Patriot!!!!), and added a link to Scott Lang from Cassie's bio... I still don't understand the repetition in Young Avengers related pages... I mean.. Just... Why? Patriot's mini-bio on this page was more than twice as long as all the others - and was an exact duplicate of an entire paragraph from his own page! However, while I personally don't think it's necessary - I mean, if it is such desperately important information that it needs to be in the Young Avengers article, change it back - as with all of my changes, I don't mind it being over-ruled. Just saying it as I see it... And I still can't think what "thay" means... I'm assuming it means "they're"... Which I think I changed it to... I'll go consult my dictionaries...
I just did two passes and updated the storyline. I will be focusing more on this entry as it needs much work, and I am a huge fan of the series. Chris Griswold 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


When was it stated that Patriot is the grandson of ISAIAH BRADLEY?

In Issue.3 Patriot unmaked and said he in the grandson of ISAIAH BRADLEY !

Founding members and stub

Captain America isn't a founding member of the Avengers last time I checked, having been revived from suspended animation in Avengers #4, right? Also, I'm thinking this doesn't qualify as a stub anymore... seems pretty complete to me, given the info we have to go on. Joeyconnick 19:24, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

He's got founder-priviliges (they put him into their records as a founder in place of the Hulk). - SoM 19:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Geez, you mean they retcon in the actual comic books as well as in the metasphere? That's... bad. Joeyconnick 03:54, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
No, he was given founder status for administrative purposes. --Pc13 07:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Future Speculation

this is nothing but fans guess, so what is it do here ?--Brown Shoes22 22:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete the Future speculation section Now. this is nothing but fans guess.--Brown Shoes22 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. While it is speculation, it is written in such a way as to make it actual information. -- Avengers fan 11:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I want to know where the hell "Knightress" came from for Kate. "Titan" for Cassie came from [1], even if the plans have been changed (I suspect for the same reason that a character DC was going to call "Marvel" became Thunder). I've seen nothing anywhere to source that Knightress will be Kate's codename tho. - SoM 12:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good--Brown Shoes22 03:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

First appearance

Stature is Cassie Lang, daughter of the late Scott Lang (aka Ant-Man II)? --Brown Shoes22 15:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiccan/Billy Kaplan and Thomas Shepherd (the super-fast teen)

Young Avengers #10 brought up again and again the fact that these guys (except for hair coloration) could be twins.

The Young Avengers Special revealed that Billy's powers -might- be connected to a meeting he had with the Scarlet Witch, before she went crazy.

But what if the connection is deeper than that?

Wanda once had twin sons named Thomas and William...

"Billy" is a common nickname for William...

Eh, it's just a guess.

Your "guess" is dead on, as that was what the recent issue of YA (11) revealed. The souls of Wanda's created children, stolen by Belasco (basically the Marvel U's Satan) were reincarnated (for lack of a better word) into Billy and Tommy's bodies. That's basically it. They're brothers in a weak sense, and are "related" to the Scarlet Witch and the Vision. Cybertooth85 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
My understanding now is that, yes, these are the sould reborn into the bodies of a previously existing Billy and Thomas. I am curious as to when she re-created them: when the original crisis with them happened, or more recently, sometime after Janet Van Dyne accidentally reminded her of them (During Avengers: Disassembled). They each have their own histories, ones which may have been altered to make room for the (incoming/additional) souls. At some point, the Scarlet Witch's influence on them had to end and reality begin; that's another reason I am interested to know when she re-created them. For instance, I highly doubt Scarlet Witch would have wanted her son to be housed in a juvenile detention center.--Chris Griswold 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. While all the evidence seems to support that Billy and Thomas are Wanda's twins, it has yet to be proven. I suspect that a visit to Dr. Strange might be in order. I sincerely hopr though that they are. It might provide some redemption for Wanda and make up for the embarrassment known as Disassembled.GoldenAgeFlash

Correct, it has yet to be proven, so we should keep any direct statements about it from the article. However, as maintainers of the article, we can certainly acknowledge the immense likelihood that this is how events will play out. From a fiction-writing point of view, all the information given so far leads directly toward them being the twins. If not, it has been wasted conjecture. Heinberg is a much better writer than that. --Chris Griswold 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Everybody please note that Allan Heinberg on the letters page of YA 10 promises that on the next issue, YA 11, Billy and Tommy will learn "the truth" about their origin and their connection to the Avengers. Ergo, what Kl'rt reveals in issue is the truth and skepticism about it is misplaced. Yep, Billy and Tommy are Wanda's twins and Magneto's grandchildren. Das Baz, 6 May 2006, 11:30 AM. (P.S. Note also that as the grandchildren of Magneto, they were Jewish, and in their new incarnations they are also Jewish.)

Weren't her twins originally just pseudo-illusions/constructs she made with her "Probability Control" powers, and were later revealed to be shards of Mephisto's shattered/scattered soul? I.e., they were never really real in the first place? Dr Archeville 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because this argument is going on in multiple talk pages and I don't want to repeat myself endlessly. -- Majin Gojira 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Can someone please point me to where Thomas is code-named "Speedster?" I have not been able to find it anywhere, including Google searches and Marvel's own Web site. Anyone? Why are we referring to him in this way? Thanks. Chris Griswold 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

From continued searching, it just appears that this is a misunderstanding; so far, Thomas has been referred to as "a 'speedster'". Perhaps a Wiki editor took this to mean he was called "Speedster." Chris Griswold 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someday there will be a Teen Titans/ Young Avengers crossover and a race between Tommy and Bart the Kid Flash. Looking forward to it. Das Baz 6 May 2006, 11:35 AM.

Too bad Bart's not Kid Flash anymore. Or a kid. --Chris Griswold 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is far from being an insurmountable impediment in universes where time-travel is so common. Das Baz, 20 May 2006, 11:51 AM.

Family Matters Cut By 2 Issues

Will the fact that the final arc was cut by two issues have any significance? Was Heinberg able to fit everything he wanted into 4 issues as opposed to 6?--Radaar 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did it say it was cut? --DrBat 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

On the YA page. Near the bottom, it's in the part about the relaunch.--Radaar 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This section SO needs to be cut down. Half of the Young Avengers' article is devoted to a single storyline. It's ridiculous!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:51, June 29, 2006
I will try to read #12 today, and then I will condense the entire thing. We don't want long, detailed summaries. --Chris Griswold 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

inuse template

When the {{inuse}} template is in use, please to do not interfere with that article or section until the edit is over. Was that edit really so important that you needed to disrupt what I was doing? --Chris Griswold 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies but I did not notice it (jumping right to the "History" page rather quickly. Honestly, though, all I did was make a section of text bold, nothing to even bring it up. And when will you get around to answering my questions in the Speed (comics) talk section? Addendum: Frankly, the fact that you would go about so drastic an edit during a very active debate is quite presumptuous. -- Majin Gojira 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really too presumptuous. I mean, he wasn't changing anything under debate, so the fact that there's an active debate holds no real bearing on what he did. --Newt ΨΦ 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well now, there's a foot in mouth for me! I retract that comment, then. -- Majin Gojira 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
We should kiss and make up. But not with tongues. --Chris Griswold 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Navbox Guidelines

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


The main YA article states that Billy and Tommy are "identical" twins. Even though I understand they they look remarkebly similar I doubt they are actually Identical. Identical means the same DNA, same DNA should mean identical mutant powers (not to mention the same hair/eye color). Unless I have a misunderstanding of how the X-Gene works, that would mean that they would have to be fraternal twins. It would make sense, becuase Wanda and Pietro are fraternal twins. There are instances where fraternal twins favor each other simply because they are siblings, which could be the case for Wiccan and Speed. Arcanum7 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While that may be true there are to arguments to be made. The first is that the X-Gene like all genes is highly influenced by environment, as is theory of many evoulationary psychologists. And the second would be that even though identical twins have the same DNA but because of environmental factors the genes of the twins become different. It's called epigentic modification and what happens is the phenotypes which is the basic expression of the gene becomes different resulting in different traits manifesting. Which would explain different powers. Stellrmn 11:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of epigenetics, and frequently cite it as a reason for differing sexual orientations in identical twins (hint hint). I just thought that mentioning it would be looking a little too deep into a real-world explanation for fictional characters and phenomenon the subject is. But I keep forgeting that I'm on Wikipedia and you can never look too far into a subject. I'm not bashing or being judgemental, just a well meaning observation. But thanks for the post I'm glad someone actually responded and you explained epigenetics far better than I could just from skimming an issue of Scientific American a couple of years ago. Arcanum7 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, do we know that Billy and Tommy are mutants? If they're actually the "sons" (for lack of a better term) of Scarlet Witch, then their powers might not be biological/genetic at all, right? I mean they COULD be mutants, or their powers could be supernatural. Besides, even if they identified as mutants, so did Hulkling and we saw how that turned out. 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Would you say after the events of Civil War #4, has Stature left just Cap's Secret Avengers? Or the Young Avengers altogether?

The only thing that is said is that she is leaving Captain America's group. --Chris Griswold () 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Teen Avengers

i was reading online as well as on wikipedia itself and found that Teen Avengers is not based on Young Avengers shouldn't someone delete that? Stellrmn 11:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Season Two?

Any news on when "Season Two" will come out?

Deleted section

I've deleted the section hyping sales-and-marketing announcements Marvel Comics made at a convention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news magazine, and it is inappropriate and WP:CRYSTAL to hype upcoming projects. Information from [anel announcements and solicitations are disallowed by WPC MOS for that reason. Please wait until something exists to determine what encyclopedic weight it might or might not have. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Someone continues to change the seasons into issue numbers. Without a source confirming that the series will continue with the old numbering that is OR. Rau's talk 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we'll just have to keep changing it back until they give up. steveking89 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'll put some hidden comments, but i doubt that will work. Rau's talk 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by all this. Is there a particular reason to call them "Seasons" in the first place? And do these "Seasons" breakdown into the traditional Volume Numbers? I mean personally I don't care what the sections are labelled as long as it it clear what order things take place in but, if there is a verified reason why it has to be one way or the other I'd really like to know. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no particular reason for "season", but because we do not have a source to say whether they are two volumes or not we do not call then seasons. I think we use season because of the interview, and because people recognize is from TV. Rau's talk 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I'd say from a strictly comic book and encyclopedic standpoint that Issues 1-12 should be labelled as such and that the 13?/Season 2 section could simply be called something like "Future Issues"? Again just an idea. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Or if you like label the section Season 2/Issue 13+ that way both camps get essentially what they want and both are probably accurate as per the Marvel statement that the series hasn't been cancelled just significantly delayed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good idea. Except that without confirmation that the numbering continues, its speculation. A series can restart numbering at anytime in its run without being canceled; as seen by the heavy hitters, Spider-man and Fantastic Four. Rau's talk 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Right so let's solve the problem by taking away the issue. I'll edit the article to show "Issue 1-12" as it is accurate and factual. And solve the Season 2/13+ debate by relabelling the section "Future". Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Was going to make the changes I spoke of above until I realised that "Issues 1-12" neglects "Young Avengers Special #1". Hence the current version of that header. I still believe that the heading "Future" makes much more sense for the latter part of the article as it solves the Issue numbers vs. season thing in a neutral fashion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're on to something. If we label "Season One", "#1-#13, + Special" then it will include the everything that that section covers. Which allows us to rename "Season Two" as "Future". I'll see how that looks now. Rau's talk 10:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Should stop the constant renaming and it is factually accurate. It's been nice working on this with you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

These sections need to be several trimmed in order to comport with WikiProject Comics policy/guidelines, under which the fictional team history is written biographically, bringing out important, long-term plot and character developments. We don't do issue-by-issue or arc-by-arc synopses. Please take a look at Batman, Superman or other Good or Featured articles for an example of encyclopedic (rather than fan-site) format. Those two formats are different things. Each is great, each has its place, and the encyclopedic format's place is here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As perhaps quite an important story arc for Y.A., is it worth creating a new page for the Young Avengers Presents story, as this story arc is about the team but concerns them all indivually. A new article would mean people could view it issue by issue, looking at only a certain character of their choosing if they wish; whilst also keeping the Main article within the guidlines... if you get what i mean? :S steveking89 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just add the information to the individual character articles. It would really Help this visions section on his article and im sure that it would not hurt the others as well. And yes, they do need to be trimmed. Perhaps as short as Runaways? Rau's Speak Page 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rau J. I suppose a mention of the individual vignettes is notable, as they flesh out some over-arcing themes, but the information on what happened concerning each member is better suited for their individual pages.Luminum (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Stature left?

Just woindering as someone's deleted her from the member's list on the infobox. steveking89 11:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. She's still involved with Vision in some way, but since the Young Avengers are unregistered and Stature is part of the Initiative on her own squad, she's technically no longer in the team. As well, none of the covers for Young Avengers/Runaways Secret Invasion depict her. That would be my assumption.Luminum (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the info box could be updated to have current and former members. Thereby including her from a historical viewpoint even if she isn't currently a member. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind she's got an issue in the YA Presents series, does that not mean that she's still apart of YA? (I haven't actually read those yet or the Initiative but as it's not really out here yet.) steveking89 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

She not only has an issue, but in the issue they still act like she is part of the team. And she has yet to state that she left the Young Avengers, nor have any of the others said this. Rau's Speak Page 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing's a lot of contradiction if you read her Young Avengers Presents and Vison's Young Avengers Presents. She believes the others should be arrested for vigilantism and she's on a different squad under the Initiative, then she claims she's part of the Young Avengers and depicted as if everything's cool between her and the others when all other depictions say otherwise. In terms of the functioning team, she's not, but in terms of a written character for Marvel's uses, she is.  ::shrug::Luminum (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Way I see it is, she thinks that they are wrong, but cares about them too much to leave the team, seeing as she calls them her family in YA Presents #5. Rau's Speak Page 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but I also just chalk it up to writers just writing whatever they want to make a compelling vignette with no real care for general continuity.Luminum (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I just added relationship status for ALL the Young Avengers, though honestly, I think the page could do without any of them. Wiccan and Hulkling's pages and later plot summary discuss their relationship and orientation. If we only talk about their relationship, it's odd and if we include indications for romantic interests for every character, it borders on unnecessary. Can we just remove all talk of their relationships and leave that to individual character pages?Luminum (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your additions. The relationship between Wiccan and Hulking does not need to be covered in depth on this page but, neither do the others. The Wiccan/Hulking relationship has "real world" impact (positive or negative is up to individual readers) whereas the others do not. I do not want to see any character described only in relation to orientation etc but, simply including the other information to make a point seems out of place. Let's work here on the talk page and see if as editors of the article a consensus can be reached about how much to include on individual characters in a team article. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking. But while I understand the real world impact of Wiccan and Hulkling's orientation and relationship, it looks out of place to only mention theirs, especially if no explanation for its addition follows nearby. Upon reading it, it just looks like fandom to add it in a mini-profile. Their relationship and impact is explained on their individual pages. But regardless, I don't feel that their orientation and relationship should be in the mini-profile with no explanation. And even if it had an explanation, it would seem out of place to put it where it is currently. If anything, I would add a "Reception" section explaining how YA was received by audiences and include the mention of the characters' relationship and response, such as fan praise, fan disdain, and GLAAD's award.Luminum (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So be BOLD. Add some of the real world stuff you mention above to the article, source it properly, and correct the language in the other sections as appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Settle down, killer. I wanted a consensus first. What else is talk for? But seeing as it's apparently only you and I who care, I'll set that up some time soon.Luminum (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill and Ted's wonderful adventure

Since same-gender marriage is now legal in New York State, Bill and Ted could indeed get married as soon as they are old enough. The scene of their engagement kiss is not only a major turning point, it is a classic. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)