Film Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Comics: Marvel Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would 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.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

I added him to the template since he's primarily an Avengers villain, not a Fantastic Four villain as he was previously listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KangConquers (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the Squadron Supreme be added under alternate continuities as they are their world's equivalents?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible, but the are more copies of the Justice League of America (DC). Spshu (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this needs to have the hide wrapper so it works better with other templates e.g. JLA/Avengers. (Emperor 10:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It was a long time in coming, but that's been fixed... - J Greb (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't need the members links on the template. Some of them already have templates. Besides it looks bad. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:J Greb has explained to me the error of my ways. I was not aware that the members were a recent addition brought about by someone being bold. I apologize. Rau's Speak Page 23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's okay. Apology accepted. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec)

Thanks, both of you.

I just want to add a pair of observation:

• The shorter template does have a link to the members list article. That list is all inclusive, something that cannot reasonably be done in the template.
• We've had back and forths with other team templates, and the general consensus has been that members lists in a navbox draw POV and "recentism" editing. With few exceptions (the FF jumps to mind) listing members isn't advised.

This is something that, if an editor wants to add the members, should be hashed out here to see if there's been a change to consensus, or if there is a solid reason why this should be an exception.

Is that the case here? - J Greb (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I liked having the members on the list. I just thought that it not only made the table look unique, but made accessibility to the members of the teams rather easy, as opposed to going to the teams article or going through the list. Rau's Speak Page 23:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there's room for a members list(in fact I tried to add one a while back), although I think it should better reflect the title's history rather than just listing the current members. --Skteosk (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently it falls as either an "all or nothing" issue — either every one that's included in the list article gets added, without annotations (That's a straight up, alphabetic listing) or just the list articles. A full list makes the 'box harder to use for navigation. - J Greb (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there's dozens if not hundreds of names in the list article so that's obviously impractical. I think it should be possible to pare it down to between twenty and thirty prominent members, but then there's the problem of everyone having their favourites and trying to come to some sort of consensus about who's included. Skteosk (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...but then there's the problem of everyone having their favourites..." And that's the nub, and not just with this template — character inclusion/exclusion has been a running issue with ((X-Men)), ((Spider-Man)), ((Batman)), etc. With this template it really hasn't kicked off, which is a good thing. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'm going to suggest we start a list with:

Captain America • Hawkeye • Iron Man • Ms. Marvel • Quicksilver • Scarlet Witch • Wasp • Wonder Man

and see where we go from there. Opinions? Skteosk (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that really reads as a "My faves are..." list as there is little rhyme or reason for that particular grouping of 7. The themes I see are:

• "Originals" - 2 of 5 (Iron Man and Wasp)
• "Cap's Replacements" - 4 of 4 I believe (Captain America, Hawkeye, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch.
• "Chairperson" - 5 I think (Iron Man, Cap, Hawkeye, Wasp, and Ms Marvel)
• "Perennials" - 5 of 7 to 9

But not all of the listed characters fit in one theme. - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the criteria was pretty much "these characters have got the template on their pages anyway", otherwise similarly obvious choices like Thor and Henry Pym would have been in there too. Skteosk (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which is bass akwards, the navbox shouldn't have been added to articles not listed in the template. And even if the 'box is present, that really isn't justification for adding the article to the template. - J Greb (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, someone added the Members section back to the template. Someone can delete it again if they like, but I modified it to include only the founders, and the current members of the New Avengers and Mighty Avengers. As already pointed out, all of those characters already have this template on their individual articles, but if we can stick to that criteria, hopefully it won't get too cluttered. There's still a link to List of Avengers members, in case anyone wants the entire list. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can it be done? This is what it would look like:

????--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a good idea. I did some edits to your sample. Spshu (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theres not some un-spoken rule or anything? Cool.--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think he should count as an enemy of Avengers after all he has done in Dark Reign. Or would that be out of place? Captain Virtue (talk)

Norman Osborn should definitely be listed as an enemy of the Avengers, but I tried to add the Avengers template to his profile, and it was deleted, as he has several other templates there already. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably, it is being remove as he is listed in Template:New Avengers as an enemy and isn't yet an enemy of the original organization. --Spshu (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added this section as it now includes Quicksilver; Scarlet Witch and Hawkeye, who had no hard connection to the Avengers nav box added to their pages. I suppose it could even be expanded to include the new few keys members (eg. Hercules; Black Panther and Vision), although there would need to be some agreement on the heading. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First lets see if we can hit a consensus about just how many characters to add. And how to go about it.

There is a wide range of "notable" Avengers on par with Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Hawkeye. Picking "someone's favourite group" to add isn't the right way to go about it since it does open the door to adding the whole roster, making the 'box to crammed to be useful.

Now, there is a way to side-step part of that, see the Brotherhood section on ((X-Men)). But I'd rather have more input here before butting something similar in place here for the rosters by notable era.

- J Greb (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The first new generation are important for being just that. It isn't about favourites - "Cap's Kooky Quartet" followed the originals. That's a hard fact.

Yes, I noted how it was done in the X-Men nav box, and while that is possible, are we listing every generation of Avengers, or just the primary teams? What may alleviate the issues is to have all Avengers after the Kooky Quartet listed by decade as opposed to teams, as there was a great deal of back and forwards. This (thankfully) saves anyone having to perform any extensive research and allows us to generalize a tad and still be accurate. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking along the lines of core "era" teams which only pop on those character articles, and that includes the first "replacements" ("Cap's Kooky Quartet" is more than a tad too fanish to be used as a header in the 'box). The down side is that it will take a bit of hashing out for the post `70s groupings. And it will fall apart a bit when looking at the post-"Disassembled" team - technically "New", "Mighty", "Dark", and the coming "Secret" are all Avengers teams but they, at least 3 of 4 ATM, are shunted into separate 'boxes. - J Greb (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another label is fine. Eras are fine as they are prettymuch the decades anyway. Who is going to take a first pass? Asgardian (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The label itself is massive and this could go on and on - it is the reason we have lists of members. Te X-Men navbox is probably an unwise precedent as it has been subject to some shocking changes and, while its back to a less jumbled layout, the list of X-Men and villains makes it massive and unwieldy. I'd suggest we actually use this as the precedent for that - dump the villains and trim the members down to the original line-up. Everything else can be dealt with in lists where their appearances can be properly sourced. (Emperor (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Villains could have their own nav box, so no problem there. Members? Originals are already there. It is what comes after that. A 60s; 70s etc. section would cover it, but it would be large. Perhaps just a link to said era in the nav box? Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to my point for the sake of clarity, I'm on board with the idea of "Mighty"; "Dark" etc. That's no issue. It's the coming and going in the first 250 odd issues which would be diabolical to track. A leaves; B & C come on board; A returns and D leaves etc. Asgardian (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what I was thinking about:

So, the base article would show:

Cap would show:

Tigra would show:

And all of the non-character articles, and Hulk, would show:

- J Greb (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a solid effort. I would, however, add another category as if we going to add members from the different eras, we also need a sub-group for the honorary members (eg. Mar-Vell) who graced the pages from time to time. I can help with this if you like. There aren't too many. Asgardian (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks this is unnecessary, considering that there's already a List of Avengers members article? Adding multiple lineups to the template would just make it harder to read, and subject it to more POV editing. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depends on where you're looking at it from.

Right now, based on how navboxes are supposed to function and standing consensus within the Comics Project, there types of characters that show up in the 'boxes are relatively limited. And based on those limitations, the articles that should have the 'box is limited to the articles in the 'box since it is supposed to allow 2 way jumping between related articles.

Right now, this 'box is on 92 articles that it doesn't contain as well as 3 User pages. Some of those articles can have a case made for inclusion as they cover characters that were used routinely in Avengers comics at certain periods of time. Two of the primary reasons not to include them has been that it will create an awkward to use template and it stretches the "relatedness" of the articles - Starfox and Hulk for example.

What is being suggested is a half step. It allows for the notable characters from an "era" to be put onto the template, but not necessarily make the template hard to use. Does that mean all the characters that have been Avengers get added? No, some give and take is going to have to happen, Ideally the list for an era would be the "core" team - the characters likely to appear in an issue of Avengers during that period. And by that same token, an "Honorary Avengers" field wouldn't be a good idea, nor would the inclusion of retcons, since they fall outside the reason for the fields.

- J Greb (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm with you on this, a lot of this seems to go against WP:NAVBOX and the members are all linked in from a central page, a page which allows us to source inclusion, the more fine-grained you try to get the more you are going to need source to back up your claim. Personally I feel we can live with less characters in such boxes - drop the villains and keep just the founding members, linking into the members list for everyone else. Perhaps this opens up the possibility for separate Avengers members and Avengers villains but this could lead to a lot of navboxes as characters have been members of or opponents to different teams or combinations of characters, you'd end up with the big names in the Marvel Universe being included in dozens of templates (given the nature of fictional universes this can get strange - at one point wasn't everyone on the planet Earth turned into a superhero and drafted into the JLA? That'd make an interesting infobox. Also every British superhero is essentially a member of MI13 but it'd be unwise to try and represent this in a navbox). Equally a huge number of heroes have been members of the Avengers, or associated strongly with them. Ultimately isn't this just a way to get around not being allowed to put these characters in team categories and the same arguments that apply to those categories might apply here - a character could end up in so many team categories it stops being useful and if there are a huge numbers of templates hanging off the end of a page it not only makes them a bigger download but you reach a point where it defeats the object of having them, in fact the neater solution would be allowing team categories. (Emperor (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

hrm...

Moving to the more general terms for the navboxes there are a number of things that come to mind:

• Characters in general are a very sore point across the board. Realistically, theses boxes should be framed from a real world context. For that you have to ask "Which characters are important to and created for the franchise/series?" I believe that is what has been attempted with things like ((Batman)) or ((Spider-Man)), but it seems to a bit of a quagmire with the "Supporting characters" and "Foes/Villains/Opponents" sets. Is Superman and supporting character for Batman? Is Doctor Doom a Spider-Man foe? And so on. Turning down those categories has always rested on over-catting concerns and that, in cases, some sort of consensus is needed to include would be needed to include an aricles in the category. Navboxes can avoid those two concerns. For the over-catting clutter the 'boxes have two advantages: 1) They have the ability to be set to autocollapse. That result in a collection of headers at the foot of the article instead of multiple boxes to read through. And 2) a "holder" 'box can be applied to the article. I've seen this in a few places and it effectively condenses 5+ headers into one "Related topic navigation tools" header.
• Creators is also something that we've essentially curtailed. Right now we are, for the most part, limiting to the writer(s) and penciller(s)/artists(s) that are credited with the creation of an initial team or character. There are the odd cases like ((Green Lantern)) where it is expanded to include those that creates a later version of a character to headline the franchise title. I wouldn't extend that to "team" franchises though. Also, there is the similar situation that the Actor and Filmmaker work group for Biographies recently dealt with for television and film 'boxes. Essentially the "We do not categorize people by employer or project because" was applied to the TV&F 'boxes. An additional argument was that it doe create tenuous or meaningless links.
• There is also a scope question I keep coming back too. Again, if we are looking from the RW context of the comic book series The Avengers, we have to ask what articles are important to that topic. Roughly the list I come up with is: Creators, Publications (especially if we move to look at/deal with the franchise), Story arcs, Prominent in story plot elements including locations, equipments, races, etc, and Prominent characters - primary protagonists, antagonists, and supporting characters. If we are going to remove the characters, then the 'boxes become less useful in general, and down right pointless in some cases. And part of that is because, IIUC, the usage of the 'boxes is such that they don't get placed on or include "blind" article. That is, the 'box doesn't include an article that would not reasonably have the 'box placed on it since that navigates "out" of the box. And the 'box isn't placed on a non-included article because that, while it would allow entry into the navigation of the topic, it does not allow the article to be navigated to. If the character section is replaced with a link to the character list(s), the 'boxes would then be removed from the character articles.

For me, I'd rather try to hit a compromise where we include the prominent, recurring characters immediately identifiable with the series/franchise in the 'box as well as a link to full character, supporting cast, and/or foe list(s). But doing that should put the material in some sort of context, which the team groupings here would do. It should also avoid in-story or "fannish" labeling whenever possible. And the link to the list really should not be "Easter Egged" in the group header.

- J Greb (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then I humbly suggest that just as the Villains are to have their own nav box; the Honorary member also receive something. After all, in order to be complete, we need to present the entire picture. Asgardian (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not totally against this idea. The biggest problem with an different list being in certain articles is it can cause a little confusion and I am not sure we need that many characters. As for the villains having their own navbox I don't think that's too necessary. The villains seem to be fine. If you have an problem with constant adding of uninportant characters you could do what the Batman template did what they did with their section. Because I think most of the important ones are down. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. There are only a handful of Honorary members so this shouldn't be too difficult. Asgardian (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can always create an documentation for this template and maybe store them there. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this be list under primary titles or related titles? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related just like New, Mighty, :Initiative, Dark as they have their own template. --Spshu (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2¢?

"Current" - Titles currently in print and featuring an "Avengers" team or, for limited series, branded an Avengers spin-off.

"Previous" - Ongoing titles that have ended or been canceled and featured an "Avengers" team.

"Limited" - Completed limited series that featured an "Avengers" team or branded an Avengers spin-off.

Possibly "Associated" for current ongoing titles that focus on an Avenger's member and are likely to intersect the above.

"Other continuities" could be kept as a catch all for the "That ain't E-616" stuff.

- J Greb (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd support this, the naming seems subjective and open to confusion, the above suggestion sorts that out. (Emperor (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Currently there is a link to the article A-Next in both the "Other continuities" and "Alternate versions" sections of the template. The article itself seems to be more about the team than the comic book. Any way we can combine these two sections into one? Fortdj33 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not likely. The subsection of "Comic book titles" (Publications a better section title?) currently covers 4 artices, 2 of which are on publications only, 1 that has a separate article for the team featured in the publication, and A-Next. In all honesty, the article should be re-worked to front load the real world context/content - the publication - and then pick up the in story material on the plot and characters. There isn't much outside of the series for the in-story section. - J Greb (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any reason why "Alternate versions" can't include teams as well as publications. Rather than rework the A-Next article to fit the template, the problem would be solved by moving the links for The Last Avengers Story and Marvel Adventures: The Avengers to the "Alternate versions" section, and eliminating the "Other continuities" section. The link for Ultimates is also more appropriate there instead of The Ultimates (comic book), because the former is specifically about an alternate version of the Avengers. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few things:

• "Other continuities" is a stop gap to avoid hand wringing over putting articles on those publications in with the "proper" Avengers publications. Knocking the publication section down to 3 - Current, Ended ongoing, and Ended limited - without respect to continuity would make more sense.
• Similar logic is behind why I added the AV section - The Ultimates (comic book) is more proper to point to from the Publication section and there would have been a hue and cry raised if Ultimates was removed. But Ultimates doesn't hit under any of the remaining sections.
• The template is currently formatted to cover everything - elements within the works of fiction, adaptations into other media, and the publications. And a choice was made to put the publications over the elements, hence no "Teams/sub-teams" section.
• Listing the articles on the magazines that don't "fit" Earth 616 canon by the name of the publication under an in story content section is less than honest.
• And I stand by my asertion re A-Next - it should be putting the real world contaxt and items first. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to skirt it being deleted as pure plot.

One last thing. Unless the 'box is split - possibly a good idea, possibly - shunning putting the title in a section reads as putting the in story content above the real world context. Something that is contary to how the guidelines indicate we ahould be dealing with works of fiction.

- J Greb (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any reason why we can't still refer to these characters as "Founders"? I understand the necessity of having them in the template, because this template is an essential part of their respective articles. But "Initial characters" just opens the template up again for all the other Avengers to be added. If we're not including Ant Man, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and Wasp on this template because they are founders of the group, then why are they here? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three things come to mind:

1. Tone: Using "Initial characters" moves away from presenting the material in an instory manner.
2. Removal of annotations: From an OoU perspective, we can lump the characters from the first few issuestogether woithout having to add "honorary" to Cap. Based on general structureing for navboxes, that type of "added information" that doesn't aid navagation doesn't belong in the 'box.
3. Purpossing across the comics 'boxes: "Founding members" can be, and often is, subject to retconning to add or remove characters at the whim of editors and writers. Using the OoU tone restricts the possibility of arrgiung to include or remove characters based on such retcons.

And to be fair, I see this field as a compromise - we cannot include every character that appeared as an Avenger and including no characters generally lacks wide support. Limiting it to the characters from the initial few appearances of the team allwos the inclusion of the characters that were used to introduce the concept of the team.

- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What section of the template should we put the Avengers vs. X-Men link in, and why hasn't it been added yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.6.158 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Storylines" - J Greb (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It hasn't been added yet.

Now it has been added, but it's placed into the "Limited comic book title" section of the template, and not in the "Storylines" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.9.94 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to The Super Hero Squad Show, the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance series, and the Marvel vs. Capcom series should be added in the "other media" section accordingly.

Not really. Those are "It's Marvel Characters" products, not Avenger centric.

- J Greb (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, maybe not Marvel: Ultimate Alliance and Marvel vs. Capcom, but The Super Hero Squad Show is based on the Avengers, so that should be included in the "television" section of the template.

The "Siege" storyline should be put in the "Storylines" section of the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.6.206 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, so I split the publications and storylines to their own template, given the unwieldy length and formatting of the section within this article, and this change was reverted. Given the significant coverage of the topic, it seems sensible to split it into its own template, and leave this template as a general overview of the major in-story elements, as well as the media adaptations (for the time being). Most users who are unfamiliar with the subject aren't looking for a list of 40 miniseries and cancelled series and ongoing series in the general overview, yet the majority of these have some notability, so to me it makes the most sense to split these publications off into their own, separate but compatible topic.

See Batman, Spider-Man and X-Men for examples of similar splits. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving publications and storylines to their own template is a sensible idea, but the changes that you made to this template, IMO were not. At second glance, the "Related teams" section is redundant, and the "Alternate versions" should remain it its own section, instead of being a subsection of related articles. Otherwise, I could personally support the changes that you made. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just assumed people would object to articles like The New Avengers (comics) and West Coast Avengers not being included in this template, as they are heavily related to and spun-out of the main Avengers team, so I added in the "Related teams" section. It's redundant between both templates, but I'm not really sure there's a way around that without slightly hampering either and/or both. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some other, general thoughts (not related to the split of the publication info):

• At some point we need to determine the core group of "major" Avengers, similar to what was done with the Batman villains. Characters with long histories with the team, a major influence in other media, readily identified as important members of the team in third party sources, etc. It'll probably take a lot of work, but it's hard to argue that the buildings and villains and whatever else are more important to the concept/history/subject of the Avengers than characters like Hawkeye (comics) and Scarlet Witch. I know there's been a ton of discussion about this above and still no consensus but at some point it needs to get done.
• All of the "list of [] Avengers" articles should be removed from the template, except the one for the main team. If we have a link to the spin-off teams in the template, the user can find the list of members accordingly. Additionally, the main list of Avengers members already lists all of the characters from the spin-off teams - that's probably something that needs to be addressed in the content of the lists, too.
• The villains section - not really sure what to do about it. A lot of those villains have only a small handful pf appearance as Avengers villains. It probably needs to be trimmed, but I don't even really know where to begin with it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments:

• Right now we don't have separate articles for the various teams and the magazines. I'm not sure if there is a problem with having both is a separate publication navbox on those pages per se, but there would have to be a need if this template gets a layout tweak. ("Publications" replacing "Comic book titles" and "Variations" replacing "Alternative versions". And the last 4 lines being "Variation", "Pub", "Story", and "IOM".)
• Long standing consensus has been to not use team naveboxes to include all members. This is to avoid making the 'box hard to navigate and to avoid overloading the bottom of the articles with navboxes. Even if we go with "major" or "long histories" we run into a problem of OR. Where do we go to get that list? What reliable secondary, third party source? Sticking with "initial characters" still seems a reasonable limit. And IIRC lat time it was broched here, including Cap was a compromise since he was added within the first few stories.
• I can agree with the clipping of the "Member lists" if those navboxes have Avengers (comics) as a related topic. It also makes the "Variations" field almost moot.
• The foes... need a systematic look. And the articles need a look to see if they are going to wind up merged to the main Marvel character's list.

- J Greb (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That sounds good. We can always collapse the multiple navboxes into a single "Related topics" header. Some of the spin-off teams have their own navboxes, too, and it's almost like triple dipping. Although if the articles are all related to those pages and they can be collapsed, I don't know if that's an actual issue.
• As far as "major" characters, I've been doing some research on it, and this is what I've got at the moment:
  • Iron Man, Thor and Captain America all seem like no-brainers. Almost every third party source about the Avengers mentions all three, they've all appeared in well over 300 issues of the comics, and they've been adapted in every one of the other version/media adaptations of the team.
  • Other characters who have also appeared in multiple incarnations of the team, over 300 issues of Avengers comics, several of the other version/media adaptations, and can be easily sourced as major and consistent members of the team are Henry Pym, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Vision, and Wasp. Those all seem like they should be added, to me.
  • I think Hulk, being one of the original members and appearing in almost every other version/media adaptation of the Avengers, probably warrants a spot. He hasn't been a consistent presence in the Avengers comics like the other 8 I mentioned but he is a major topic in relation to them.
• That's where things get mirky. The rest of the characters who are generally considered major Avengers all fall into the 100-200 issues range, and aren't consistently mentioned/referenced. Arguments can be made for the inclusion of a few others, like Black Panther, Black Widow, Ms Marvel, and Spider-Man, but if we want to keep the list fairly short and concise I'd say you stop at the Hulk and then add a link to the list of Avengers members. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Since most of the Avengers teams have their own navboxes, including them in both the Avengers template and the publications template seems redundant to me. But I understand that most of those articles are about the team as well as the publication. Maybe what needs to be done, is to combine the two navboxes into one template, similar to what's been done with ((G.I. Joe)) and ((Transformers)). The Publications and Storylines would still be there as a separate section, but the teams would not be duplicated in multiple templates.
• And the "initial characters" was decided upon, to prevent the template from becoming a popularity contest for Avengers characters. Any debate about "major" Avengers is simply WP:OR, and invites edit warring over who should be included, and who should not.
• Finally, I think that the "Members" lists should remain. If we can decide the best way to present the various teams, and you don't want to have the members lists in a separate section, we can always do what's been done in similar templates, by including them in parentheses (e.g. Avengers (Members), New Avengers (Members), etc.) Fortdj33 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I really don't think the G.I. Joe solution fits here. The reason I pointed out a variation of where it is now was based on WP:GI Joe's project level consensus to include the base navbox on all of the articles. Comics doesn't have that project wide guideline. And in practice we do split the 'boxes based on topic and size - See the Bat-, Super-, Spider-, and X-templates. Even this template has a family of other templates, mostly to allow the "creator" and minimal "initial character" links for the variation teams. If the pub/story section was large enough, and I don't think it is at the moment, creating ((Avengers publications)) would have been be the reasonable next step.
  - J Greb (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I wasn't using the recent changes in the ((G.I. Joe)) template as a suggestion for this one, I was simply giving it as an example of how the Avengers team information and Avengers publication information could be contained in the same ((Avengers)) template, instead of creating redundancy by splitting it, and having both of those templates on many of the same articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I realize that, but it seemed appropriate for me to indulge in a degree of CMA since my positions on the two are slightly different. - J Greb (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There really are three different types of redundancy here:
  1. Internal: Winding up with the same article link in 2 or more sections of a single navbox. I don't think that is a problem unless it is used to massively Easter Egg or the links are pointing to article sections. Having West Coast Avengers in both the publication and team/variation sections isn't a bad thing.
  2. Externally on a few articles: Again, this makes sense since articles are going to fall into multiple topics for navigation. The hope is that many articles don't approach where Batman or Stan Lee are at in the number of navboxes at the bottom of the page. Having this template and ((New Avengers)) on one or two pages isn't wrong and it does allow a reader to move from one topic set to another.
  3. Externally on all or most of the links on one 'box: This would be a problem. Either the smaller box isn't needed or a split hasn't been completed.

- J Greb (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Either the smaller box isn't needed or a split hasn't been completed." Are you referring to this template, or the GI Joe one? If you're referring to this one, the split was completed, then reverted, hence the discussion. You can see how the split looked in the revision just prior to the current one. Additionally this box is missing several articles, specifically a half-dozen related to the Ultimates publications, which I added to the publications template. They could be added here, but again it only clutters up this template when a clean split of the publications is doable and actually helps to make this template more focused on the major in-story elements, with the other media still in here for the time being. Presumably if the other media continues to be released at its current pace for the next several years, a split there will eventually be warranted, too. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a general observation. If we have two navboxes - one large and one small - and both wind up on the the pages of listed in the smaller one, there is a problem.

Given this discussion was prompted by a revert of a bold change, that articles were added to the split-off template is a little moot. Those can be added here if needs be.

- J Greb (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little irrelevant, but also fairly relevant - these are Avengers publications, but their link to the initial characters and buildings and media adaptations of the base Avengers group is fairly tenuous. Which raises an argument as to whether this template would be a collection of closely related articles, or merely a collection of "sort of" related articles. And the base Avengers template wouldn't wind up on all of the pages listed in the publication template, only the pages that contain both in-universe team info and real-world publication info on one of the spin-off teams. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be two issues here. J Greb has reservations about whether the ((Avengers publications)) template is needed, while Fandraltastic points out the growing amount of Avengers-related media. On the other hand, there's the issue of either having the same article in multiple places of the same template, or having multiple templates on the same article. At the risk of beating a dead horse here, I think that both problems could be solved, by merging the two templates back together, and making the publications and storylines be a separate subgroup of the ((Avengers)) template. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edited the template, using the examples of the Transformers and GI Joe templates, to see how it looks. Obviously feel free to revert, but I think it works nicely. Another idea I had: using variables, we can make it so that the top of the three boxes is replaced with the creators/initial characters/other info for each specific team, based on the appropriate box for the page it's placed on. Essentially folding the New Avengers/Mighty Avengers/Dark Avengers/etc templates into this one, and getting rid of most of the redundancy. I'm going to edit it in to see how it works, if there's no major objections to at least giving it a try. Obviously feel free to revert afterwards. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's more along the lines of what I was getting at, but moving the "In Other Media" section to its own subgroup is a little premature at this point, so I moved it back for now. And while I applaud your ambition, please don't get carried away with combining the New/Mighty/Dark/Secret/Uncanny Avengers templates into this one. It's perfectly fine for each of those articles to have its own navbox, and still include the Avengers navbox as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys... Would you like any input from other editors before you change the template or do you feel you two have consensus between the 2 of you? - J Greb (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, of course any input is welcome and appreciated, there's no consensus, just testing as more of a proof of concept at the moment. Feel free to revert until we've established a consensus here on the talk page.

Anyway, the issue I see with it in the two-templates-in-one format is that you can't place the publication template on a page without including the base Avengers template, so for instance you can't place it on the Avengers Academy page without including the base Avengers template there, which really has no relevance to that page. Hence why I was looking into ways to use parameters and switches to change the content of the top box. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I thought we had come to some sort of consensus, but then Fandraltastic reverted the template back to the version before the split. I understand the concept of WP:BRD, but I think it's in poor taste to use the actual template as a sandbox while a discussion is in progress. I personally don't see a problem with including the ((Avengers)) template on articles such as Avengers Academy and New Avengers/Transformers, as long as those articles are included somewhere in the navbox. Fortdj33 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was fine with the double template, just mentioning a potential drawback. I reverted as J Greb seemed to take issue with the template being edited with only two editors agreeing on the solution. If J Greb agrees with the double template and doesn't feel that we need more input I'm fine going back to that as a consensus solution. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks.

Fortdj33, I've got serious reservations about using a multi-fold layout to a navbox where there isn't a Project wide, at the least, consensus for it. If the template is confusing enough or hard enough to navigate that it needs to be broken into hidden chunks, then the sub-topic(s) should be split out. And I'm still not convinced that's the case here.

I do agree that, given there are articles on additional "Avengers" titles, they should be included in a 'box. At a minimum, this 'box, either the live version or one in a sandbox, should have those added to see what we have and if the "Publications and stories" sections are large enough to be spun out. That would also assume that the pubs gets moved down to precede the stories.

If the section does need to get spun out, I'd offer the following suggestions:

• List of Avengers titles be left in this template even if it is duplicated.
• ((Batman publications)) be used as basis for it. Including the text in the bottom of that template.

- J Greb (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify, I don't see any problem with splitting the publications and storylines to a separate section. With the additions that Fandraltastic made to ((Avengers publications)), that information would easily take up half of this template. But as pointed out above, having that information in a sub-section of the ((Avengers)) template, prevents it from being duplicated in multiple templates, and prevents having multiple templates on the same article.

As for coming to a consensus, I thought that's what this discussion was for. I don't understand why there needs to be a "project-wide" consensus on this particular template. Including text similar to ((Batman publications)) is fine, but again I don't think it's fair to use that as a basis for whether Avengers publications and storylines are large enough to be split out or not. Having that information in a separate section of this template, seems to be a fair compromise between not changing the template at all, and splitting the information on two different templates. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I've done my best to take everything from this conversation into account, and created two versions of the template on my sandbox, one single template and one split template. The only real duplication in the split template is in the "Variations" section, which should perhaps be trimmed down a bit if that's the better version. Which do y'all think looks cleaner, and provides easier navigation? -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well given your examples, it looks like you think the choice is between adding information to the current template, or splitting the information between two different templates. Have we given up on the idea of splitting the information to a separate section of the current template? The main issue for me has been duplicating information, so if your options are all that we have to choose from, I would prefer the single template. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me clarify some things:

• Using the navbox template with collapsed sub-sections is in essence saying the sub-sections should be entirely separate navboxes. The only reason to collapse them is to give users small navigable chunks instead of large, cumbersome, confusing ones.
• re "project-wide": This is, was, and will be me covering my ass as to why I didn't complain about the change to ((G.I. Joe)). There is a project level consensus there to have that template on every article the Project looks after. I'm fine with that. And if making a navbox that is appended to 190+ articles useable necessitates having collapsible subsections so that users can potentially navigate between all the articles it's transcluded to, I'm fine with that as well.
  That does not mean I think it is in line with the navbox guidelines and intents, just that is is an exception to them.
  More over, for that exception to be extend to navboxes that are primarily or solely looked after by WP:Comics, there needs to be a similar project level consensus for it at Comics.
• That type of consensus is unlikely since we do maintain things like this and this and even this.
• I'm sorry I was unclear about Batman publications. I was pointing to it as a good, neutral, navigable layout, not as a benchmark as to how large similar sections in templates for other franchises need to be to be split off.
• Multiple topics, or sub-topics as the case may be, can wind up on the same articles. That really should not be a problem. Well, at least as long the duplication doesn't happen on all of the articles in one of the templates.

That said, what I was getting at was for someone to show what the current template would look like with all the articles for publications and stories would look like and convince me that splitting is needed. What Fandraltastic put in their sandbox is that "Show me", and looking at it, I'm starting to be convinced.

- J Greb (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortdj, the problem with the multi-section templates like GI Joe and Transformers is that you're linking each article to so many other article with barely any relation. I agree with J Greb that it's probably not a great idea, especially when the two separate templates placed next to each other on the 10 or so articles that call for both produces almost the same effect, without cluttering up the in-universe-only and publication-only articles with the second portion. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. If J Greb is convinced by Fandraltastic's example that the information needs to be split, and Fandraltastic is correct that there's only 10 articles that would require both templates, then I will go along with the use of the two separate templates. Thank you both for taking the time to discuss this and clarify your thoughts on the matter. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it appears we've reached a consensus of sorts, I went ahead and updated the live templates to reflect what I had in my sandbox. This template has the publication info split off and the publication template now reflects the example of Template:Batman publications. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be a dispute regarding the inclusion of Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher. WP:EXISTING states "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles". The film does not have its own existing article but is redirected to a general article about Marvel Anime. As seen in the above discussions, Consensus is that links to individual sections of articles should not be placed in this template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the content is there and has enough reliable sources. We could simply move this content [and Iron Man: Rise od Technovore too] to related Wikipedia entry. I don't know if it meets the criteria for WP:NOTE, but other released direct to video films of Marvel Animation have their own article. Raamin (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think the film merits its own article per WP:GNG, then that's one thing but we generally should not be including links to sub-topics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also WP:MOVIE guideline and to my understanding, it doesn't forbid the creation of such an article. Raamin (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the content to the Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher entry, and added the title to the navbox; I hope there isn't a problem anymore. Raamin (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't as far as the template is concerned, the notability of the new article should be discussed elsewhere if anyone cares to challenge it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It probably should not be linked here. The Avengers are just guest staring so as to justify the "Avengers Confidential" title to boost its profile for sales (As it is already more notable than IronMan:Technovore). As the core of the movie is around SHIELD, Black Widow as their agent and Punisher as their pawn paying his dues for the trouble he got into with SHIELD. Spshu (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Spshu that the title and the guest-starring of the Avengers are to increase the profile and sales of the movie, but they are in the movie and in the title. By Wikipedia standards that means it should be included. If we start judging whether every article is truly part of a larger category despite having the name included it will open a Pandora's box of debate on all adaptations of one media into another, because not all fans like all adaptations and some will argue it shouldn't be included because it isn't a true adaptation. Spidey104 14:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add hawkeye and quicksilver and scarlet witch and hercules to initial members 199.79.170.163 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 14:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were not initial members, so even if the request is made properly it won't happen because that is incorrect. Spidey104 16:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking for help creating a list of avengers enemies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymax23 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The addition of Disney Infinity: 2.0 Edition to the video games section. 77.97.110.60 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Dom497 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who should be added to the Avengers enemies page Special:Contributions/Rymax23 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iron max 2 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Do you think we could go back to a combined list of Avengers Enemies, let me knowIron max 2 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request edit of the Avengers navbox, Captain America is not a founding or initial member, he was recruited in #4.

173.56.226.25 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. List_of_Avengers_members says he was given founding member status. RudolfRed (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't make much sense to me, if someone gave Barack Obama Founding Father status, does that mean he was a founding member? Captain America is not a founding member, and being leader or given that status in place of the Hulk shouldn't change that.

It seems weird to have the Super-Adaptoid and Norman Osborn on the Avengers Template, but not Scarlet Witch or Hawkeye or Vision. And criterion for inclusion wouldn't have to be particularly subjective - you could just look at who's been in the most Avengers comics other than the 5 originals + Cap. john k (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, they should be removed.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with that (though I think it would make sense to list at least Kang, Ultron, and the Masters of Evil on the Template, and maybe a few other prominent antagonists), but I actually do think that the most prominent Avengers should be on the Template. How about the ones Marvel itself lists as "Core Avengers" - Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers), Falcon, Hawkeye, Luke Cage, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew), Vision, and Wonder Man? john k (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve Rogers was added to the group in the march 1964. That's basically six month after the debut of the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.116.84 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was retroactively given "founding member" status as stated in the main article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]