Talk:List of Avengers members

message: What does the bold font mean? There's no legend or key. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold font 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another infiltrator 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing of D-man's references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.[] and [] Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text:   Why aren't the Mighty Avengers Infinity recruits included on the main list?  ie: White Tiger, Power Man, Spectrum, etc? 50.134.188.210 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New/Mighty Avengers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Heroic Age Team 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In other media 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spshu/Sandbox1Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He changed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spshu/Sandbox10Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added a reference for D-Man being an Avenger from OHOTMU HC Vol.3  Ultrabasurero (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I also added references from OHOTMU Avengers 2004 & 2005.Ultrabasurero (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Captain Britain (Braddock) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Swordsman membership 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Honorary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Marvel NOW! members 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Piped links to character articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Likewise Veranke.  MultipleTom (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infiltrators 

message: In List of X-Men Members article you can see that there is section for splinter teams like new mutants, x-force, x-factor and school students. I think it would be really great to include that kind of information in this article also because this is the main article for Avengers' members. so i am including that. let me know if anyone have better suggestion or if someone dont want me to then kindly first settle with me here instead of just removing or reverting. regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Given the amount of controversy this list has had already, I don't think it would be beneficial to include any secondary characters lists. Most official Avengers teams already have their own lists articles anyway. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  don't you think it would be good to centralized everything like x-men list rather than creating new article for every other avengers team?? Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splinter Teams 

message: Read Avengers vol 1 1, and it's Pym who suggested teaming up, then Wasp, Iron Man, Hulk, then Thor followed. I keep trying to change it to this order, but someone keeps changing it back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.63.195 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes were reverted, because they broke the format of the table for the Founders section. Besides, it's unnecessary to change the order, because all of the characters in that section became Avengers in the same issue, regardless of whose idea it was. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HANK PYM IS THE FIRST AVENGER 

message: I see my edit to the page has been undone, claiming the citation I listed is not a proper source. Has the person who made the edit bothered to click on the link, and actually see what the source says? Because it not only lists page and panel of the comic that proves Captain America doesn't have a middle name, but also SHOWS the panel in question: 
Additionally, the Marvel handbooks list Captain America has having no middle name, putting Grant in with his aliases. 86.184.121.147 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums are considered social media and do not qualify as a source on WP. Which Marvel Handbook, some are not considered acceptable here. Mark Guenwald wrote a article about ret-coning regarding the whole middle name issue. If I remember it correctly, Mark indicated that he does have a middle name whether started with an "M" or was "Grant" I do not recall. Spshu (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the forum, it's the content - specifically, the panel which has Rogers specifically saying he has no middle name, and specifically not Grant. But you seem to prefer going from vague memory - "if I remember it correctly" - rather than the comics themselves. As for handbooks not being considered acceptable here, since when? 86.184.121.147 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the content doesn't show every last page. Where is any reference their to his "M." middle inital that he had for a while? Nothing, so your not even going on full information either. So, you prefer to go on half researched information and a single comic book panel. Spshu (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Rogers - NOT Steve Grant Rogers

message: It states he was offered membership but, declined. I haven't read the issue so... was he then given honorary membership or are we just assuming that being offered membership automatically bestows honorary status? 'Cause if it's the latter, there are other characters that have declined membership in the past.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed above, the Avengers Now! Handbook lists him as an Honorary member, and he show up in that capacity in the Avengers & X-Men: Axis miniseries. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The handbook writers have said the Honorary membership in the Avengers Now Handbook was an error but in Nova #25 Nova is awarded provisional membership by the Avengers Dartalon (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nova (Sam Alexander) 

message: Just because Marvel has released quick previews of their post-Secret Wars titles, that doesn't mean this page should reflect those previews. Those changes aren't happening for at least three or four months still, and Wikipedia changes can't be based on covers for upcoming issues (which may change!), solicitation text (and the Marvel previews aren't even full solicits!), and so forth. This page should only reflect what has already happened, not our guesses/interpretation of previews, online news, etc. DeadpoolRP (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above. The characters depicted on the previews aren't necessarily team members. For example, Galactus is on the preview for New Avengers. It would seem fairly obvious in this case that he will not be a member of the team, but there are likely others that are not obvious. Human Torch in Uncanny Avengers, for another example, has not been confirmed as Johnny Storm. Considering Johnny is going to be in Uncanny Inhumans, it is possible that this is Jim Hammond. In order to be included on this list a citation should be required at the least. idisestablish (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Secret Wars team changes 

message: Can someone explain to me (specifically Spshu and Fortdj33) how Bucky, Jessica Jones, Dr. Strange, and Iron Fist "were not official Avengers until after the Heroic Age relaunches" because their time as New Avengers don't count even though we have a "New Avengers section" which includes characters who were New Avengers before the Heroic Age event and the team dynamic hadn't changed in between? Please and thanks. 'Cause either we should be including the newer group of members original join dates or we should be moving the older ones down...Cebr1979 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But the team dynamic did change. It's stated at the beginning of the Post Civil War section: "The New Avengers became a splinter group that chose not to comply with federal superhuman registration, as opposed to the governmental-sanctioned team presented in Mighty Avengers then Dark Avengers." Therefore, the characters added to the New Avengers during that time, didn't become official Avengers until later, which is supported by the reference from Avengers Assemble. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that show that the original members were official Avengers prior to that, though? Wouldn't it still be one or the other?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When the original New Avengers book started, the members of that team were official members of an official, government-sanctioned Avengers team. But once the registration act passed and Civil War ended and the New Avengers team decided to continue their noncompliance, they were no longer a government-sanctioned team and didn't even have a founding Avenger on the team, so they were an unofficial outlaw group. The team's dynamic and status changed. That is what Marvel editorial decided, and it's reflected in Marvel's handbooks. DeadpoolRP (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That explanation works for me, thank you!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome--glad to help. DeadpoolRP (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Avengers not official Avengers until after Heroic Age? 

message: Could some kind soul simply count the total number of Avengers (past and present) and include that number in the lede? Kind of like when you click on a person's Wikipedia page, it gives their date of birth and then "(Age 67)" or whatever. Is there some kind of bot or routine that could do that?
I only came to this page to get a rough idea of how many Avengers there have been, throughout the publication's history, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who came here for just that little taste of information. Thanks for your consideration. ←Ben Culture (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head Count? 

message: Should we add other versions eg. MCU? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other versions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Avengers members. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123080621/http://blog.newsarama.com/2012/11/14/marvel-now-next-big-thing-uncanny-avengers-expands/ to http://blog.newsarama.com/2012/11/14/marvel-now-next-big-thing-uncanny-avengers-expands/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should Rocket be a member? Should Voyager be a real member and not just an impostor? john k (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No Road Home" 

message: Hey, I was pretty shocked that no one thought about where or what certain members are now-- for instance, the Enter the Phoenix saga, where Echo ended up becoming the new host of the Phoenix Force. And Marvel Boy (Noh-Varr), Nova (Richard Rider) and Moondragon being current members of the Guardians of the Galaxy. All of this is as of 2021, and I made a little contribution with that. The only one I didn't modify is Venom on the Savage Avengers, because I don't know an awful lot about the King in Black storyline. If there's anyone that has read it, please modify it. IronKnight374 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified Character Notes Description 

message: Iron Man is bolded in the article but he is dead as shown in Avengers:Endgame. So, does he need to be unbolded or remain like so because he died as a member of the avengers? PrathuCoder (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the comics, not the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Man is Dead 

message: This lists several people joining in Avengers Vol. 5 39, who are not in that issue, E.G. Magneto, Him, Spider-Girl, Black Cat. 
I can find no reference of them joining during "Time runs out" or any other time. 72.85.25.238 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avengers Idea Mechanics 

message: Some inclusion criteria for being in the main article isn't made clear - in three ways. 1) There is no reason given for what S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Secret Avengers aren't on this list. I'm assuming they're in a similar situation as the "Not officially sanctioned Avengers teams" section but they aren't there either. I think the new Avengers Inc. is in a similar spot as well. 2) Is there a reason that liaisons like Maria Hill (in Avengers Vol. 5), Monica Chang (in Avengers A.I.), and Agent 13 (in Secret Avengers Vol. 1) are not listed here? Are they not considered full members, and if that's the case, is there a reference for that? And 3) Why is the Phoenix Force listed as a separate member because it possessed Maya Lopez when she rejoined the team, but the Venom symbiote and the Spirit of Vengeance aren't listed separately? Personally I think it would make more sense if the Phoenix Force is only mentioned under Maya Lopez's entry and not separately. 39hints (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria