Talk:The New Avengers (comics)

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

Reinstated

Added the page back. West Coast, Great Lakes, etc. Avengers have their own page. It's nonsense not to give this team its own page as well. Not to mention the merge vote only won by 1 vote, and only lasted 6 days. That, and the merging was back in September, apparently. The team may be just the Avengers after Civil War, and may remain together, or it may be disassembled as well, leading to a new (in volume number, not adjective) Avengers book.--Kozmik Pariah 10 June 2006

New Avengers (comics)?

Shouldn't this be at

New Avengers (comics), as per the norm? rst20xx 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sounds like a viable change to me although I have no idea how much of a project that would be, but nobody has objected so I say feel free. MrDenton 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raft Breakout

There should be a list of villans confirmed to have escaped and their status since somewhere. --Madhackrviper 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? This would be increadibly important information. Just saying "some villans escaped" seems all the incomplete to me. --Madhackrviper 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important to whom? --
khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You people are nuts! To me it seems like perfectly relevant information that would logically be given. If we can have pages about every insignificant hamlet in Winsconson and every unimportant United States Naval Vessel in history then we can have a list of villans escaped from the raft which, to comic book fans at least, is actually important information. So, either we make a list on this page or somewhere else or we make a catagory for it. I myself do not know this information (which is partly why I request it be added) so I can not do it myself so I politly requested that someone esle who does knwo this or has teh resources to find it out does so. What is so difficult to understand? --Madhackrviper 17:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is difficult to understand is how you can equate a crufty list of villains from a comic book story to places people live and ships upon which men and women in the armed forces serve to protect their country. Knowing whether the Purple Man got out of prison or not has an importance lifespan that will be up in maybe another year at best. With both "House of M" and "Civil War" having dominated the storylines of the past few years, the raft breakout storyline's impact is over. I suggest searching google for a site that has such a list, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it's a place like New York City or a ship like the USS Cole or USS Arizona then sure it's more important then a comic book. Even places like Worcester, MA or even smaller cities like Haverhill are important, but Hicksville, Nowhere? The USS Historically insignificant? Who cares! Noone! And who cares about a list of villans who escaped from the raft! Every sane comics fan would probably be interested, even if only moderatly. And "House of M" I belive was before the Raft breakout (I could be very wrong on that). "Civil War" was caused by it! Thus the importance of it will resonate forever, the fact that Nitro, Coldheart, Colbalt Man, ect. excaped from prison has caused one of the most significant stoylines in Marvel history. We don't even mention the important villans who escaped let alone the unimportant ones. I'm tired of your "doesn't belong on the Wikipedia", your probably not suprised to find out I'm an inclusionist! To me it's why NOT have this simple list (which really, why do you care if someone adds it, does it personnaly harm you if someone adds a list of villans escaped from the raft? No, while it does personnaly harm someone who wants this peice of information!). I really do not understand your argument at all, I am quite confounded by your logic. By the way, I happen to be from an insignificant hamlet, so don't try to call me on that! --Madhackrviper 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as your arguments include statements using the words "every" and "forever", I will not be able to seriously discuss this with you. I never said it would personally harm me; that's absurd. Will it personally harm you to have to google the information instead of look it up in an encyclopedia? As for your comments about the event's significance: "House of M" came after the Raft breakout, and the idea that Nitro had broken out of the Raft is a very minor detail in the context of "Civil War". Even if perhaps you were able to successfully argue that the breakout was a significant detail, it is definitely not significant enough to warrant a list of 40 or so minor supervillains. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your right about the use of "ever" and "forever", they are superlatives innoproriate for this notext, you got me there. I suppose it wouldn't personnaly harm me but the Wikipedia should be a repository of knowledge. While I suppose that Nitro's breaking out of The Raft is a minor detail in itself, the fact that he did so allowed him to cause the event that caused the Civil War. Whether you like it or not Nitro did cause the Civil War in a similar way to how Gavrilo Princip started World War I. However, you are right that in fact on this page a list would be innapropriate, and I conceed the argument, especially since it now exists elsewhere.
For better or worse, there is currently a list of Raft escapees, at
The Raft (comics). TheronJ 14:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nice. GOos work, man. See, that's ar least a much more logical place for it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it should be here! I actually did say "somewhere" in my original post. I agree, that is a much better place for it, I had tried to find that page once before and didn't see it there. Many apologies

New New Avengers?

Should there be like something to show what's going to happen? The New Marvel Previews said that there will be a new team. Maybe like a list of 'yesses' and 'nos'? IronMan54 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that Image at the bottom should be taken seriously - it include most of the Mighty Avengers, and it doesn't cite its sources - so I'm removing it. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 89.241.108.52 (talk • contribs
) 06:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It includes some of the Mighty Avengers because the books are contrasting views. They intertwine somewhat. The images were revealed through Wizard Universe. The links to the pages including both images can be found here: http://wizarduniverse.stores.yahoo.net/mightyavng1bc98.html & http://wizarduniverse.stores.yahoo.net/newaveng27cc98.html
The Humanoid Typhoon 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the picture links certainly allow one to speculate, the text of the Wizard article falls short of announcing the team's new lineup. I think we should hold off on adding this to the Wikipedia article until we get a more definitive source. --GentlemanGhost 12:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The covers are of both Mighty Avengers and New Avengers. You don't need text. The image is right there. The Humanoid Typhoon 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't rely on images as they may have been put out there to fool us or lead us in the wrong direction.SaliereTheFish 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also, being featured on the cover a comic book title does not necessarily equal team membership. The Black Panther has been on the cover of the Fantastic Four without being a member. Spider-Man was on the cover of the Avengers long before he ever joined the group. This is why having a written confirmation is important. --GentlemanGhost 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of people get on covers, but those two are clearly an introduction of the two teams. The list so far is adding up perfectly with the eight members I noted earlier. The Humanoid Typhoon 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Tony Stark was not named Maria Hill's replacement. She noted he should have been picked. The Humanoid Typhoon 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Leaders

Spider Man and Cage are Co-Leaders? Where was this info found. I only read that cage was leader.Phoenix741 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think someone just put that in out of confusion or Fanboy Hype. I'm editing it out until we have a Citation...SaliereTheFish 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could even argue that the New New Avengers don't have a formal leader, although Cage is certainly stepping up to fill the role. MrDenton 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was confirmed that he is the leader, bendis said it himself.Phoenix741 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome, but since it hasn't been addressed in the actual comic, shouldn't we list the source where the information comes from? Also, Spider-man is still (or again) listed as "co-leader", I'm removing it until that can be verified. MrDenton 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the same page where it was said that Iron Fist and Cage were going to be on the avengers, and spider-man is not co-leader so if it is the same guy who put it back up, we need to talk to him.Phoenix741 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


a tougher, more connected version of The Hand

I have read this a few times and I'm still not quite sure what it is supposed to mean. More connected to what? MrDenton 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

connected means like mob connections. He is going to be the kingpin of all Super crime. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Phoenix741 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
This doesn't help me. Who is "He"? "Like mob connections" or actual mob connections? What exactly entails "Super crime"? And where does this information come from? MrDenton 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this came from an interview with Bendis i belive on newserrama concerning who is goin got be a part of the new new avengers. He is the Hand, there was a limited series writien about him, and he was also in Beyound!. More connected is like well mob connections, like he is going to create organized suoer crime.Phoenix741 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: my mistake, I am not sure if that is a typo, but i just relized that it is not the hand, it is The Hood i am talking about, with mob conections and such. I belive that that bendis said "a tougher, more connected version of The Hood". I am not sure if that is a typo or not from something else, but yea my bad.Phoenix741 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bendis said The Hand. As in the mystical Japanese ninja cult that Daredevil, Iron Fist, and all the other martial arts heroes fight all the time.
I know he said something about the Hood also.Phoenix741 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying now Phoenix, the Hood makes a lot more sense in that statement. Hopefully somebody can find that interview and clear up exactly what Bendis said.MrDenton 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about The Hood is from the Marvel Spotlight Civil War: Aftermath issue. He talks about how The Hood--who is a new creation--will become the "Kingpin" of all super-villains and the New Avengers will be fighting them at some point. Maybe the confusion with "The Hand" came from the fact that to get Echo back, they'd need to fight Elektra and The Hand.

Tense Edits

There's a sentence under New Avengers: Disassembled about Jessica Drew locating Captain America that is in past tense. I'm just going to go ahead and change this because I can't imagine anyone would object. Universaladdress 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And actually I'd suggest someone who's on this article clean up this section's tenses overall. There seems to be a whole bunch of past tense, at least in this section, like someone tried to change it from past to present and overlooked a bunch of stuff. Universaladdress 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y'know, I'll just do it myself. Feel free to clean up after me. 70.144.177.130 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spell of Tartashi

This spell, cast by Strange in #31 would allow the New Avengers to know if anyone there there was hiding something. Despite the fact that Cage's baby was a Skrull, and Spider-Woman is probably one too, the spell had no effect on any of them. Strange himself said that if anyone WAS hiding something, they'd have a seizure. What do you think happened?

Honestly I think he is a Skrull, but this kinda stuff does not belong here. Marvel.com boards are a good place to talk about it.Phoenix741 11:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, how do we know that baby Cage is a Skrull? I don't read everything, but I haven't found anything to point in that direction. Also, if you look carefully at the spell of Tartashi, Jessica Drew is holding her heart afterwards. Could it be that this was just an example of how good the Skrull cloaking was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.209.49 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Woman

In the "Treason?" section of the article, it says that at the end of the most recent issue, Jessica Drew's eyes glow green like a Skrull's, and she walks off with Skrull Electra's body. I checked a couple times, and it didn't look that way to me. The way I interpreted it was that she was going to take the body to Stark despite what the other's said, and Wolverine tried to stop her. She checked HIS eyes to make sure he wasn't a Skrull. She even said sorry. If she had been a Skrull, why would she apologize for hurting him? It says that her eyes glowed in the article for Jessica Drew as well. Am I the only one who didn't see her eyes glow?DNMN 08:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they glowed, I think people are just jumping the gun, like everyone with green eyes is going to be a skrull.Phoenix741 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't glowing. Spider-Woman HAS green eyes. I interpreted it the same way as well, Jessica deciding to take the body to Stark regardless. The Great Unwashed 02:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda what I thought. Should we take it out, or has someone done so already (I haven't checked yet)? And should we also take the initiative (aha...ahahahaha) to do that on the Jessica Drew page?DNMN 08:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it out, I think. It's not super-obvious like Elektra or Cage's kid. It's basically fan-speculation and saying she's a Skrull because she has green eyes isn't exactly empirical when she has them already. I have green eyes, and the doctor says I'm not a Skrull.The Great Unwashed 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello guys; about all this mess with the skulls....I do think that Iron man already knows that something is happening in the shadows; check it out on mighty avengers #1, when he is talking with miss marvel.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.3.151.210 (talk) 15:12, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


yeah, I saw it, too. but the million dollar questio is: what does he knows? and if the answer is the skull invasion, would be the initiative teams his answer ? Swaisser 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:New avengers sketch.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least they are putting it in Articles. I took it look at it and there is a fair use.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story Arcs split

Given the length of the plot summary, might it be an idea to start a new article: List of New Avengers (comics) story arcs (in a similar manner to List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs, for example). Were this done I'd recommend seperating the information about variant covers into a new section in the main article solely for information on variant covers (although some might argue that the information on variant covers isn't particularly relevant anyway...) Planewalker Dave (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think that the plot summary simply needs to be condensed here to include only important information. The bare minimum. Rau's talk 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. In particular,
The New New Avengers could use a hack down. Planewalker Dave (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait, I remember getting those down to two paragraphs each. Geez I need to pay more attention. But at least that proves it can be done. Rau's talk 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has any objections, I am going to move the current "Storylines" section to a new article entitled List of New Avengers story arcs in a similar manner to the Ultimate Spider-Man article mentioned above. We can then condense each story arc down to one or two paragraphs per storyline. Hermiod (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is done. The new article is
New Avengers (Story Arcs) and the Storylines section in the current article now just links there. The plot clean-up notice has been removed as it is no longer applicable to this article.Hermiod (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Electro

This isn't the only article affected, but people are jumping the gun with Brian Michael Bendis' comment that Electro's actions in New Avengers #1 are connected to Secret Invasion. Too much speculation about who is and is not a Skrull is sneaking in to various articles connected to Secret Invasion, none of which is based on published comic books. Hermiod (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Avengers

New Avengers redirects here - wouldn't it just make sense to have this at that page or is there some cunning plan? We could turn that page into a disambiguation page for example, but as it stands it doesn't make much sense. It has been a redirect for 2 years not apart from the break out of a disambiguation page at one point so it'd be worth resolving one way or the other. As I doubt either New Avengers is so overwhelmingly more notable than the other a disambiguation page might be the way to go but I am not bothered either way as long as we do something. (Emperor (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This series' proper title is also "The New Avengers". "New Avengers" should redirect to "The New Avengers" and that should be a disambiguation page. "New Avengers (comics)" should redirect to "The New Avengers (comics)" and Then there should be a page for the tv show as well. Does that make sense? Rau's Speak Page 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a couple of reads but yes it does. Move this to "The New Avengers (comics)" and make The New Avengers the disambiguation. The problem is the links to external sites here show other people use "New Avengers" as does Marvel [1]. So I suppose it depends on what the consensus think - it does say "The New Avengers" on the covers so... (Emperor (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Marvel and everyone refers to them as The Ultimates. But the comic uses Ultimates, that's the name of the article. I think there is actually a guideline on this. I think they call it "Naming Conventions", but I've never seen it. A more experienced user could tell you. Rau's Speak Page 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review, the series is called The Ultimates, so yea. That part of what I said is untrue. Rau's Speak Page 08:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated roster

The same thing is happening over at

Mighty Avengers (a page which I'm not even sure why it's back without discussion). Please, don't update the rosters until the new issues featuring those rosters are released. Yes, we know it's going to happen but it hasn't happen yet. Planewalker Dave (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

New Avengers: America Salutes You

I recently came across an issue of this series, apparently a Department of Defense giveaway. Are these stories in continuity or exist in a separate one? RahadyanS (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN

I have entered ISBN information for New Avengers 9, but am uncertain as to how to move to correct place. Please correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.209.49 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHB image needs replaced

When the article is about a comic-book series, as opposed to a character, we need to show an example of the series, with its logo, cover treatment, trade dress, etc. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The writers and artists are listed in the group publication information, and then again in a separate section that lists the creative team, including the editors. Is it really necessary to have the creators of The New Avengers listed twice, and have a cover image for both #1's of the series? I tried to consolidate the redundant information, but it was reverted. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the creators are concerned my guess would be no but that is question for infobox's talk page as to why it is included twice. I do know the first image is to used to represent the team (could be any image but covers are considered less infringing on the copyright), the second image is to represent the publication (this is typically the cover to first issue).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Avengers (comics) → New Avengers — The article redirects anyways, and identifies as the shortest article title as well as the actual name of the team, similar to Avengers. Ganthet2814 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, the indicia for both volumes has been New Avengers. However...
There is also The New Avengers. So the dab may just need to stay.
- J Greb (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The images of the comics themselves, both in the article and on the sources linked, show the title as The New Avengers. Wikipedia:Article titles states Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). (my emphasis). If the comic images are correct, then The New Avengers is a proper name, and the definite article should be included. The other consideration is whether disambiguation is required. In this case, the British television series and film share the same name. It could be argued that the comic is the primary topic, but a quick Google search shows the results are pretty evenly split. I would suggest The New Avengers should be a disambiguation page; this page should remain as The New Avengers (comics); and the television series should be moved to The New Avengers (TV series). Skinsmoke (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a minor bone or two with the names. First off, the cover cover may not reflect the actual title. As I pointed out, as near as I can tell, the indicia, the actual title the magazine is published under, is sans "The". Second, the article, as it stands, is focused on the fictional team with the real publication being an after thought. Under naming conventions, "The", unless there is a clearly established, long standing, in-story use of the article with the name, is dropped in these cases. - J Greb (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As pointed out, the disambiguation is needed because of The New Avengers TV series. I don't think that a separate disambiguation page is needed, because the two uses can be directed by hatnotes at the beginning of each article. But if The New Avengers does become a disambiguation page, then New Avengers should redirect there. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nice feature by Philadelphia Inquirer

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20100920__New_Avengers__has_same_characters_back_with_a_vengeance.html -Sharp962 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 08:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_Avengers_(comics)&oldid=1203337812"