Talk:Marvel Now!/Archive 1

New and Relaunched titles in Tables
Hey Hi I thought it would be great to write new and cancelled titles in tabular form.and also write relaunched title in front of its previuos volume in table.so I am writing that.let me know if u think its not great.but i can tell u surely it is a clear and most good view to get your favorite titles.Thanks Shoxee1214 (talk) 18:31, August 7, 2012‎ (UTC)


 * First me say the table was a good idea and I applaud your good faith efforts to improving the article. However the side-by-side layout makes the table appear disjointed. The stacked layout is much more concise with readers able to extrapolate the same information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually let me try something, and get some more input.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this table is more compact and doesn't have those bulky gray blocks in it. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that table is more compact and succinct. I added the grey blocks to the other table to give it a better indication of no or unavailable information than the empty plain cells.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the first table looks much better. The side-by-side does show which titles are replacing existing titles, but it is harder to read. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ok TriiipleThreat i appreciate that you corrected me but can you come with more good way to make this table,actually i want you to show clearly that which title is replacing which.like "New Mutants" is not to be replaced ,so it should be mentioned and like "Uncanny X-Men" is replaced by "All-New X-Men". so kindly set table in a way which show that which title are replaced and which are not. Regards . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a way, but we're still giving readers a very detailed table and they can expropriate that same information (for example: one X-Men title is ending and another is beginning). Also it avoids breaking WP:SYN, since that information isn't directly stated by the source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The first table you showed me, which has all the titles in one column, is the better one. All those gray areas in the second table just make it look less clear. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ok TriiipleThreat as you say so.but i still think side by side is pretty great and clear.ok there is also a new title named "A+X" written by variuos writers and i think its also ongoing so can you include that title in new series actually i dont know its complete details.and should we include titles that are not affected by this relaunch under "unaffected titles" .because they are not listed but included in marvel now!.and Nightscream those grey boxex were not permanent they would be filled as new title would be announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ok for once i want you all to give this table a good look.and let me know your problems with this.actually marvel now is all about new creative teams and which titles are new and which are relaunching and which are being cancelled and which are surviving this initiative.so i think this is right to do this

everyone please tell me the problems in this table.i want this to be permanent.here we can easily see which are relaunching and which are being cancelled and which are new fresh titles like "uncanny avengers". so please suggestions??????


 * First, lets keep any proposed changes to the tables layout here per WP:BRD instead of going back and forth in the article. For now concensus is with the previous version. As I said earlier, the same information can be extrapolated from that table and is much cleaner. It's 10 columns versus 5.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i know but dont u think its better to perceive from this that which are new and which are being replaced.as a die hard marvel fan myself i think this 10 column version is even better than 5 column version.also we dont need ref column.??? so why you dont think that it is not good.you can also see that its clearly showing the titles.???
 * Informationally the tables are the same, one is just needlessly more complex.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * well if u want this to be good and simple then can u please modify this to tell that which are replacing which title and which title is not being replaced.because marvel now! is all about about the new direction of each title.so kindly include aur modify something to show that which title is being replaced by which in tabular form.??? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the question. The table above is incredibly jumbled and hard to read, while the one in the article now is clear, simple and easy to read. You can take in the information in a glance. The one above, not to mince words, is a diaster. I know it was made in good faith, but making a chart is something people at newspapers and magazines do professionally, and the one above would never pass muster. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A + X
I think the upcoming "A + X" title, which is the Avengers/X-Men team-up book, should be added to the list of new series. Marvel's "Marvel NOW!" site lists the title as part of it: http://marvel.com/marvelnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.230.129 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, Once more info is released, we'll add it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Avengers Assemble included in marvel now confirmed
well i suggest we should make now a third portion intable alongside new and cancelled series because "Avengers Assemble" has been announced to be part of Marvel Now! starting issue 9.so what do you say what it should be,?? do make edit. and also include A+X because it will be released in october and still there is nothing about that in this article atleast include its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Punisher
The sources listed in these edits do not explicitly state the cancellation is related to Marvel NOW! nor does not it state it is being replaced by any Marvel NOW! books. In response to this edit summary, the different is that New Mutants' cancellation is explicitly stated to be tied to Marvel NOW!.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's simply incorrect. Did you even read the article? "Nine Marvel series will end in October even as the publisher debuts Uncanny Avengers #1, the first title in its sweeping Marvel NOW! initiative. According to Marvel’s October solicitations, which went live this morning, the month will mark the conclusions of Captain America, Fantastic Four, FF, Incredible Hulk, Invincible Iron Man, New Mutants, The Mighty Thor, Uncanny X-Men and X-Men Legacy." The wording goes out of its way to avoid making a direct connection to Marvel NOW!, it's simply a reiteration of Marvel's October solicitations, mentioning the fact that Uncanny Avengers also launches that month. Your argument would work if discussing a new title, but this is not, it is a cancelled title.Snakebyte42 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but all this does is support the exclusion of New Mutants, not the inclusion of Punisher.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'm fine either way. Snakebyte42 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, as far as I can tell, the same would apply to Defenders as well. Your thoughts on that? EDIT: Screw it, making the edit myself.Snakebyte42 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Snakebyte42. The quote doesn't explicitly say any of the nine titles listed are related to Marvel NOW!. It says "These nine are cancelled the same month this Marvel NOW! issue comes out." If we list one cancelled book from October, I think we should list all of them. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the others are self-evidently related because they're being replaced by the next volume of the series a month later. I did remove Defenders and add the cancelled volume of Deadpool, though. Thanks for the input. Snakebyte42 (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * no offence to anyone but i think defenders and punisher should be included because what u are saying source is not marvel.com and marvel havent officially announced the cancellation of their titles what marvel announced is only the relaunching of titles so now coming to cancelled titles what we should see here is that which title are being cancelled during marvel now months or just befoe marvel now months so that is why punisher and defenders should be included because marvel will never boldly announce their cancellations they will announce just their replacements. yes but punisher is also a exception because there is a possibility that it will continue after war zone mini series from issue #17 but not confirm yet .but Rucka's run is coming to an end in War zone mini series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and also not nine titles were cancelled in october but 10 were cancelled including deadpool. see this is the problem if we refer source to some other website than marvel.com.and also A+X is new title so i am including this in "new series" not "other series" .so looking at november solicitation it is confirmed that defenders is also being cancelled.--Shoxee1214 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we're not. We're saying that the titles being cancelled are not part of the Marvel NOW! event and do not belong in this article. Furthermore, the previous Deadpool volume numbers were correct. Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry but then how can u say that the titles u have written in cancelled series are part of marvel now! ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they are being relaunched with a new volume. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * oh come on look u r not doing this right. only relaunched titles are not part of marvel now the titles which are cancelled are also part of marvel now .ok can u prove me how not relaunched titles are part of marvel now can u prove.no u can't prove but u can see the title which are being cancelled during that time are all part of marvel now so we should include those titles.if u can prove sir kindly then tell me if u can't prove then plz don't remove them from wikipedia. i will make the change after ur answer and i'm being polite sir no offence but plz give a valid reason for not including them. and also i want to ask just tell me how A+X is not "new series" .come on man i havent heard of A+X before so obviously it is new series and you placed it in other series oh come on if u want to do that like this way then at least change the format of table.A+X is 100% new series .and also new mutants and defenders are being cancelled during marvel now to make way for new titles . i'm waiting for ur answer sir so then i can edit and make some changes in this article. Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please speak properly if you wish to make an argument, and please do not assume that I make every change in an article. If you wish to argue that the cancelled titles that are not being relaunched are a part of Marvel NOW!, find something you can cite to support your viewpoint. Snakebyte42 (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i told u i was being polite its just that after long discussions how can some write only relaunched itles as cancelled titles only.and as for ur question can u show something to support ur viewpoint? Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not polite to bitch at me for doing things I didn't do. The cancelled titles are being relaunched, therefore they are part of Marvel NOW!. If you want to prove anything else, you'll need to find support for it. I cannot prove a negative. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * language plz. i said i was being polite i didnt mean to dstrb anyone.my intention was for best of this article i jst couldnt understand why were u saying that only relaunched titles are cancelled even other cancelled are also part of marvel now but u got angry and then thing got messed up. if u dont want u should've told .as a die hard fan of marvel i jst wanted a very good and complete article but here i saw everyone changing accoeding to his/her taste. sorry i didnt want to hurt anyone i jst wanted a complete knowledge . Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've kept my words calm and my tone formal. 'Bitch' is slang for 'complain', and rather adequately describes getting angry at me for edits I did not make. I did not call you any insulting terms. I'll repeat: "Please speak properly if you wish to make an argument, and please do not assume that I make every change in an article. If you wish to argue that the cancelled titles that are not being relaunched are a part of Marvel NOW!, find something you can cite to support your viewpoint." There is nothing here that is even remotely 'got angry' or 'thing got messed up'. Are we through, or do you have anything that supports your viewpoint? Snakebyte42 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No we are not. But from now on i will try to find good sources even some not find and just try to tell that their point is valid. I said i meant good for this article and was not aiming for some edit war. do try to make this article as good as possible this is what i expect from u all. Regards Shoxee1214 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

involved,but not listed
i want to ask should we include those titles which are not bannered as "marvel now" but are undergoing drastic changes during this initiative like Hulk Vol. 2 becoming "Red She-Hulk" and "Avengers Assemble" undergoing creative change and roster change. Well i think we should include this because i have seen in Civil War amd Dark Reign that those titles are also included which are not bannered but happened during thos events. we can also include them under "involved, but not listed" .so what say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The scope of this articles is for Marvel NOW! titles only.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know how to edit much on the page but at Fan Expo this past weekend (08/24-26/2012) They announced that Morbius: The Living Vampire will be starting in January 2013 as part of Marvel now. The also mentioned that "Wolverine and the X-men" and "X-men" would be getting the Marvel NOW dressings during the Marvel NOW period from October 2012 and extended thru March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey man, thanks for the heads up. I just got back from my cottage so I missed that completely. Do you have a source for it? If so I'll add it right away. Failing that I'll source it myself whenever I get a chance in the next couple of days. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the link - http://www.newsarama.com/comics/fan-expo-marvel-morbius-joe-keatinge.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't mention Marvel NOW!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the announcement of Marvel NOW " Throughout October, Marvel will launch a number of brand new series -- often more than one a week -- with additional new series and relaunches for some classic books rolling out through February of next year."--now I know it the Morbius article doesn't explicitly state it is part of Marvel Now, but it wouldn't make sense for any title to be launched during October 2012 thru February 2013(now including March 2013) and it not be part of Marvel Now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While that may make sense, it must be explicitly verified; otherwise it might be constituted as original research or synthesis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Red She-Hulk Announced to be included
from the link http://marvel.com/news/story/19320/skottie_young_baby_variants .in 4rth paragraph it is written that (The latest addition to the Young Baby variant line-up is for the first Marvel NOW! book, RED SHE-HULK #58.) which proves that Red she-hulk has now been included in marvel now! . so now we should include this in 'other series' right?? Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

New/Relaunched/Other/Cancelled Series
i think titles like Uncanny Avengers, All-New X-Men should be included in new series while titles like Avengers,New Avengers,Captain America etc should be included in Relaunched series and titles like New Mutants and Defenders should be included in cancelled titles while titles like Red She-Hulk are in other series so i wanted to ask should i make edits according to this because this article in not showing cancelled titles like New Mutants and Defenders and also Avengers is relaunching while Uncanny Avengers is brand new title so should i make edits according to this?

i would like you to take a look and tell the errors

Titles
I like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See the above discussions regarding cancelled series. Also however you look at it, relaunched/new are essentially the same thing. For example, one can say Incredible Hulk was relaunched as Indestructible Hulk or say Indestructible Hulk is a new series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ok so hulk is relaunched but can we write Uncanny avengers,all-new x-men,a+x in new series because they are brand new titles? --182.185.226.104 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That was just an example, the point is that they are essentially the same thing, so just leave it alone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. You could just say that All-New X-Men is Uncanny X-Men relaunched. Snakebyte42 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ok i got that thank you. but i really think after reading this talk page that why new mutants and yes defenders are not mentioned. coz as far i know they are also being cancelled due to marvel now! so why are we not writing these in cancelled .can u help me on this plz  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.204.214 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion under the 'Punisher' heading on this page. Basically, there is no source explicitly linking those cancellations to Marvel NOW!. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ok thnks 4 helping but i think now i got an idea which will be a solution for this whole talk page. do support me on this plz i am making some edits and writing three more titles in new "Finished Series" section .Thanks 4 helping again --182.178.204.214 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Like TriiipleThreat said, what you did still has no explicit connection to Marvel NOW!. I'd also like to point out that Avengers Academy is ending in roughly the same time period as the other books you're trying to add. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to a new Marvel NOW series - "Thunderbolts" http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=40965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Marvel NOW title "Avengers Arena" http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=40986 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Avengers Academy/Arena
as in new series only those titles are written which are being relaunched somehow but then i saw thunderbolts in new series so i it is better to include A+X in new series because it is obviusly new series and as Avengers Academy is being cancelled and its cast shifting to Avengers Arena so that is why i have written Avengers Academy in cancelled titles.--111.68.102.26 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple of things; A+X is a limited series not an ongoing series, and as you've been told repeatedly you need to verify that one title is replacing another.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Red She-Hulk now releasing in October 2012
it has been now announced by marvel that red she hulk will start from october 2012 as part of marvel now1 instead of september 2012 you can see urself on this [|link] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.102.26 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ but again do not fabricate your own titles in the citation. The title of the source article is the same one that you need to use in the citation. Same goes for the date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also you need to remember to sign-in, someone might accuse you of sock puppetry by mistake.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Marvel NOW! Point One
hey what about marvel now! point one one-shot which is releasing in otober 2012 why it is not included.in other words where should we list it??--Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the other series section, or create a one-shot section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

why A+X is not 'New Series'
can anyone plz tell me why a+x is not included in new series. plz tell me why its in other series even its new and satrting from #1 .--111.68.102.26 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read the other threads you have started?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes i have . you can google it and u can find that its an ongoing series not limited series so it should be included in new series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.102.26 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on you, as the one who wants to make the change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link showing it's an ongoing http://www.craveonline.com/comics/articles/192137-comic-con-marvels-cup-o-joe-panel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatrix730 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Captain America and... included?
can anyone tell me why series like "captain america and.." is included in cancelled series when we dont know that it will be relaunched so this means now we can also include new mutants,avengers academy,defenders,punisher in cancelled series. so should i include these?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the given citation, again they must verified. If it is not enough we will remove it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Arena is somewhat continuation of Academy
hey as the series which are included in cancelled series are those which are being somehow relaunched like we included uncanny x-men in cancelled series and then all-new x-men in new series beacuse we know its replacing that title and uncanny's cast is moving to all-new x-men. so thats why i am including avengers academy in cancelled series because we know academy's cast is moving to avengers arena so i thnk that should be included in cancelled series. regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, a few characters from Avengers Academy will be included in Avengers Arena same with character from the Runaways and other series. This does not mean one is replacing the other. Again you need verification. Also whats up with all these questions, you have been told repeatedly about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is War
What´s up with this event? http://marvel.com/news/story/18946/this_is_war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.159.220.34 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well there is some confusion sorrounding this series. first marvel now! was announced to be not including limited series. but on the cover of second issue of this series characters are shown to be wearing their marvel now! costumes.and its also not officially announced to be included in marvel now!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

New Avengers not in December
in december releases new avengers is also written along with Avengers. actually new avengers is releasing in january 2013 so we should include new avengers under january releases heading. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It says it will be releaded in January 2013.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah thats right but why not include that in january 2013 portion . in this way we can then also list several titles under some other months and can say that tht title will released in that month. i mean when there is portion of january then why it is included under december --Shoxee1214 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the section addresses them jointly. As long as we clarify the publication date, it is fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Extra Reference
the reference named "Sneak Peek: Red She-Hulk #58" is second reference for red she-hulk. so i'm saying what if we remove that coz we already have one other reference for red she-hulk title why use second reference for that same title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One ref says its apart of the Marvel NOW the other ref has publication info, neither has both.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok but what if we include only one part of info . actually we have'nt included both parts for everu other title except red she-hulk .so ?--Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Table Format
ok as marvel now is pretty much almosh over so i was thinking of making some suitable edits to table .i want to say that everything i am doing is for good of this article.i dont want an bad infact i have put three months of effort into making this table as best as possible and i wall all of ur humble opinions on the changes i want to make especially u talk coz u r a creator of this article and u know a gr8 deal about these things i am giving explanation of every change .Finished titles these are those titles that are for now being finished like amazing spiderman,incredible hulk and avengers academy etc. i have put those titles in this section which are now not being known to come back sooner or later .Cancelled Titles these are those titles which are cancelled abruptly just to be relaunched again like uncanny x-men,captain america etc they are cancelled and coming back again. .New Titles these are those titles which are completely new like All-new X-Men. i am not assuming that uncanny is being relaunched as all-new coz we all-new x-men is a new title .also indestructible hulk is new title coz it has been known before previous title was incredible hulk for this purpose i m putting these in new same goes for thor god of thunder etc .Relaunched Titles these are those titles which are launching again like iron man is relaunching coz before invincible there was a title named iron man. same goes for guardians of galaxy and morbius and thunderbolts. so this is my table. i will put same references that are in original article once u will approve.

i want u to have a good look at this table coz i really put a hard work in it to make it as nice and as clear as possible. if u have prob with any title then we will fix that but i think the format of table shuld have no problem coz it is as good as i thnk possible it included all factors and i have put everytitle in its perfect position so what say u???? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh, We went over this already.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * hey beleive me i want u to allow me to make this edit . table format is good i thnk i tried to include all parameters we should know which titles are new or relaunched or cancelled or finished. so can i make this edit??--Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Marvel NOW!, several editors have already explained to you that we need explicit verification that a series was cancelled or finished (however you want to call it) as a part of Marvel NOW and that relaunched / new is basically the same thing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok we can put cancelled and finished in one section but how can u say relaunched/new as same thing is all-new x-men,uncanny avengers a relaunched series or is avengers,new avengers a new series? we should have different sections for those . what u say ?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, besides the fact that they're all new volumes, some of the titles that you have listed can be considered both relaunched or new (i.e. Indestructible Hulk, Thor: God of Thunder, etc.)--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * so what u say that i dont do edit to original table ??? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am saying the table currently used in the article is fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * hey i want u to know i really put too much effort and u have denied to make edits. u told exceptions like indestructible hulk and thor god of thunder i also told u exceptions all-new x-men and uncnny avengers i jst dont know why u r not allowing a more clear view of table.its like u want to edit as u like but i really tried too hard. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort but it is not more clear, it is more confusing. Keep it simple.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and i would like that u dont make article according to ur own view. keep universal view. u made all edits u think are good u didnt give a thought to any other's view. i would like that u check 6,7 people opinions on my table and then tell me whethter my table is worth replacing or not . i really like u to do that if u can. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not just me, others have commented on this in the earlier thread. Bringing up the same topic over and over again doesn't change anything.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok as u say but plz do try to find other's opinions . i still will hope --Shoxee1214 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sales and Reception Section for newly launched issues
hey what do you say should we include sales and reception/rating section for the new #1 of every title. we can do reception section like AvX where we can give rating for every title in table (in 3 columns for newsarama,ign,comicbookresources). so whats your opinion?--Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Marvel NOW is more than just the number one issues, so a reception and sales section should be very broad in scope and cover the relaunch and/or title as a whole, not individual issues.--11:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * actually i think adding reception for complete series issues which are part of marvel now! will be really difficult. so we can do 2 things ,first is that we have to scrap this idea then and second is that we can include and mention that its only for #1 issues . --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye series bannered but not listed
as of now i have included Hawkeye in other series section because a website has shown preview of its #6 and its clear that it has same banner which debuted as part of Marvel NOW!. but there is a thing actually it has same banner as of Marvel NOW! but on top of cover its written only Marvel insted of Marvel NOW!. well we know that it is happening in Marvel NOW! like some titles before were part of civil war and secret invasion but they were not bannered but we included those titles in wikipedia articles under heading that these articles are "included but not listed" so i want your opinion where should we put Hawkeye because its clear that its happening in Marvel NOW! but should it be included in others section or should we create another section like "included but not listed"??? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not clear, neither the preview nor the article itself mentions Marvel NOW, for now it's best to wait and see.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah you are right but thing is like all the crossovers/brandings marvel has ever put also consist of titles which are not bannered but included in that specific event . so now there titles like Dark Avengers,Astonshing X-Men,X-Factor,Captain Marvel,Gambit,Avenging Spider-Man,Venom,Scarlet Spider and winter soldier. These are titles which are continuing in Marvel NOW! and these may be bannered or not but they fall be included in time of Marvel NOW! and it can also be confirmed by reading these titles those issues.. so where will we put these titles in future or now. little help please and i really want your helping answer instead of strict answer that provide source and provide that and that. so helping opinion please. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is verification and no original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * but there are many many other articles which have included those titles which are not bannered of that specific article event but are included in time of that event. so what was that then ?--Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because other stuff exists on Wikipedia doesn't make it correct.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok. then tell me how should we provide source of those titles which are included and not bannered and we can only tell after reading those titles. how can we provide source that shows this. because marvel now! start can be shown by 2 points . 1) captain america has created an avengers team consisting of x-men and costume changes and 2) new mutants are popping up.  and during reading amazing spider-man issue #698 i saw that captain america and others were wearing marvel now! costumes. and during reading astonshing x-men annual 01 i saw that gambit mentioned that new mutants are popping up. so how should i provide source of things like that. because only bannered things are not worth including. for article like this we should included a very good and deep information regarding marvel now! so buddy i'm asking that how should i provide source of these things?. and we should create a little section like 'inluded but not listed' or 'included but not bannered' like this . do you agree?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be explicitly verified by a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok when and if the titles i mentioned are included then will you yourself include them in this article? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With a proper source, anyone can add it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. but i want to say something in a month it will be clear that astonshing x-men #57, venom #28 and hawkeye #6 are included in marvel now!. i hope you will list these 3 titles in this article next month. but you can only do this after reading these 3 issues. so i will wait for you to include these 3 then. regards. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What will be made clear remains unknown but I can tell you that storyline information alone is not enough to warrant an inclusion, again we need explicit verification saying it is a part of Marvel NOW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye confirmed at last
here this is a link where you can see a cover of hawkeye #6 supporting a marvel now! logo also http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42568. and this is a link of an image http://www.comicbookresources.com/prev_img.php?disp=img&pid=1354909780. that's why i'm incuding hawkeye now.--Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dark Avengers #184
hey recently hawkeye #6 cover was released and it was supporting marvel now! initiative "join the revolution" banner but not marvel now! tag so you said that we should not include that. but yesterday a new hawkeye #6 cover was again revealed on cbr.com and then we see that hawkeye #6 is supporting marvel now! tag also so that's why hawkeye #6 is now included. thing is now same has happened with dark avengers #184 so i want to ask before adding that issue that can i include dark avengers in this article because it is supporting marvel now! join the revolution cover. and by the way it should be included because marvel announced in july that there one of the main task in marvel now! is to create new types of covers for their series which confirms that dark avengers is also in marvel now!. and dark avengers #184 is also listed as marvel now! in various outlets. go check comiccollectorlive.com. but for your confirmation here is a link of dark avengers http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=14485 and here is a link of marvel announcing their cover strategy (read only last four paragraphs as this article is too large and contain other information) http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=39534. so that is why i am adding dark avengers. regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy of verification has been pointed out to you numerous times, this is no different than before. Do NOT add original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man volume
Volume 5? I think it's 6.
 * v1 001-332 (1968-1996)
 * v2 1-12 (1996-1997) Heroes Reborn volume
 * v3 01-98 (1997-2004) Busiek, Chen, Quesada, Tieri, Grell, Miller, Laws, Ricketts
 * v4 01-35 (2005-2009) Extremis, the Knauf brothers
 * v5 01-33, 500-527 (2008-2012) The Fraction/Larroca run
 * v6 Marvel NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.126.121.124 (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Scarlet Spider #13
I've noticed that the cover to Scarlet Spider #13 has the red "ReEvolution" label that the other NOW books have but it doesn't actually say NOW anywhere on it. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=14748 So my question is whether or not to add it to the "Other Titles" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.202.101 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In cases like this it is best to wait until we have explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry but what does that mean? is this means that after reading the story then we can include that ?--182.178.175.18 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It means until we have a reliable source that says it is a part of Marvel NOW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Daredevil #22 not EVEN bannered
In NYCC writer of daredevil said that starting from issue #23 Daredevil will be part of marvel now!. we have also a reference to that. but later a marvel representative said that #22 will be part of marvel now!. now you can see a preview of #22 here http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=14839 and its clear that its not part of marvel now! so it means we have to take writer's statement as correct that is why i am changing some content for daredevil related information in this article. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are 'REvolution' bannered books not included here??
i want to ask actually why are you not including books which have seen a shift of cover change during now! timing but are not supporting now! tag.i know you will say we need verifaction. look everything will not be announced officially by marvel some titles just change quitely
 * look at the covers of wolverine and the x-men #22 http://www.comicbookresources.com/prev_img.php?pid=14585&cover=1 and #23 http://www.comicbookresources.com/prev_img.php?pid=14721&cover=1 one is bannered marvel now! other is simply marvel so what does this show??? and YES both have banner of REVOLUTION.
 * also when first previwed hawkeye #6 was just bannered marvel but then this cover was released http://www.comicbookresources.com/prev_img.php?disp=img&pid=1354909780 . and yes here is a link which is confirming that hawkeye #6,captain marvel #9 will be part of marvel now! http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42575 and now this is cover is released for captain marvel #9 http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=14838 . so now it was confirmed that captain marvel #9 is part of new initiative and also its not supporting now! tag so this means any other title which is having Revolution banner is also included in this initiative called marvel now!

NOW COME ON tell me will i have to still show you more things to convince you that all the revolution bannered titles are also included in marvel now! oh come on so that is why i am saying that for the last time i am asking you CAN I INCLUDE THEM NOW??? because i have shown you everything said by marvel representatives and released by marvel entertainment.

I respect each and everything on wikipedia that is why i havent turned anything into edit war and you know for how long i am seeing this article. i am even doing a lot of research on now! that is why i have provided you with many links to show you that plzzzzzzzz just dont look at the now! tag. some things are meant to be understand like we can see a shift from wolverine and the x-men #19 to #21 and then #22(non now!) and then #23(now!). so it clearly and perfectly tells us as according to marvel representative that hawkeye #6 and captain marvel #9 is part of marvel now! but both are not released with now! tag. I wanted to politely ask for your permission finally before adding these revolution bannered articles in this article. So i awaiting your reply (talk) --Shoxee1214 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You still do not get it, after repeated answers to the same question. We need verfication, that is policy. The core principal of Wikipedia. The references you posted are just covers. They do not state that Marvel Revolution is the same thing as Marvel Now. Saying that they are based on your own opinion is original research. What goes on the cover of a comic book is done on a whim and there is a lot thought on what is placed there. So the editors must have there reasoning for not labeling it Marvel Now!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * so for this you are saying that it should be said directly by marvel's then what in the world you call that statement of marvel's representative when he said that captain marvel #9,hawkeye #6 will be in this new strategy??????????--Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That verifies two titles. Every claim needs to be independently verified and/or a blanket statement from a reliable source saying that they are all the same needs to be referenced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * then tell me this as wolverine and the x-men #22 is not tagged now! but #23 is tagged then shouldn't it be mentioned also??? and yes hawkeye #6 was shown with now! tag but it released without now! tag (you can buy that issue for verification) ?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, this really is not that hard to understand. If you have a source that says it is a part of Marvel Now, then it is fine. If you do not, then the answer is no. It is that simple. There is no need for further questions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusion between ReEvolution and Marvel NOW!
it seems that things are now making sense. marvel announced their new initiative called mMrvel ReEvolution in 2012 in which many new features were introduced and then Marvel Now! was also announced to be a new step in ReEvolution so i think titles which are bannered only ReEvolution but not Tagged Now! are considered to be part of ReEvolution not Marvel NOW! as Marvel NOW! itself is part of ReEvolution initiative. So what i think is that titles like captain marvel,hawkeye should be removed from this Marvel NOW! article. and we also know they do not carry now! tag they were just announced to be a jumping on points as they are part of ReEvolution. i know i get that thing late but better late than never. so what say you??--Shoxee1214 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Infinity
here is marvel teaser for FCBD 2013 http://marvelousnews.com/index.php?catid=268&itemid=15572 and then this was revealed to be infinity http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=43585 as FCBD books are usually one-shots so i am adding this in one-shot portion. Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That would violate WP:SYN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah sure. but you know it right that first marvel now! teaser was released and then infinity was released so this really confirms that its part of marvelnow! so how should we include this??? because this is part of that and we can't just ignore that. so what would be your opinion as this really deserves to be included as can be seen by links . so?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like always you need a source that explicitly states the information that you wish to present.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Now Wave 1?
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=44440 According to this link Axel Alonso refers to a 2nd wave of Marvel Now Titles. Should this page be called Marvel Now Wave 1? The quote is about half way down the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.200.114 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Daredevil's not included now
On official marvel website we can see that daredevil's not included in now!. http://marvel.com/comics/issue/40494/daredevil_2011_25 and I also asked wacker (editor of daredevil) who said http://www.formspring.me/StephenWacker/q/437365434015054387. soi'm removing daredevil --Shoxee1214 (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Superior Spider-Month part of marvel now!
this url http://marvel.com/marvelnow redirects to official site for marvel now! . here on that page is a block named latest headlines under which we can see infinity so i think thats why infinity is included in this article as part of marvel now! and also marvel now! wave 2 is said to be from july till next year. on that page in headlines section we can also see superior spider-man news for titles like superior foes of spider-man and also superior spider-man month which really confirms these titles being part of second wave of marvel now!. so we have to include these titles. i'll include superior foes of spider-man,superior spider-man team up and superior carnage in this article after one day so everyone can also give their opinion. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wave 2 to include "JUMPING ON POINTS" also
its said by marvel's editor in chief that wave 2 will not only provide new titles but also jumping on points for existing titles. so its mean a new separate section should be added for these kind of things. by the way here's a source http://www.newsarama.com/comics/axel-alonso-marvelman-infinity.html --Shoxee1214 (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving Separate sections to age of ultron and infinity
i suggest we should give separate section to age of ultron and infinity by this i mean these two limited series should not be placed under wave 1 or wave 2 as its a confusing term for these because as Ultron #1AU was branded as marvel now! and Age of ultron but it wasn't included in wave 1 announcement so similarly there can be future issues like this so what's your suggestion TriiipleThreat ?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of WatXM status
Since Marvel clarified that WatXM isn't part of Marvel Now after all, I curtailed the quote from Aaron explaining the direction of the book. Use this quote as part of the WatXM article if you feel so inclined but not here. Leocomix (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no reason to remove it, the information is directly related to this article. Just because the series may no longer be a part of Marvel NOW!, does not mean the information is not useful in a historical context. Marvel NOW! will not last forever. That does mean we should go around removing valid information from every entry.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since its status changed what do you propose should be done to reflect the diminished emphasis? That information isn't lost and isn't necessarily valid now that the status changed, it belongs in the WatXM article. We only shift information to their proper entry. What's your disagreement with that? Leocomix (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was and is still valid. The only thing that should be done is add information about the change not take away from what is there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

How to handle All-New Marvel NOW
As the heading says. That is apparently wave 2 of Marvel NOW...so I'm not sure if those books including Avengers A.I. are actually wave two or not...Suzuku (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

All-New Marvel NOW article
okmI've waited till NYCC 2013 which saw many new titles being announced for All_New Marvel NOW. thing is that some new titles are debuting and some are getting a Point.NOW issue as a jumping on point. As we can see that this article's table is not even suitable to include this information. and also this second phase is also coming as fallout from Infinity or coming after 'Inhumanity'. so i'm making a new article for this. if anyone has some great suggestion to incorporate this new NOW information then do let me know. regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Theres no need for new article, the current format could use some tweeking. Which I am working on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ok do tweak asap so we can start adding info related to All-New Marvel NOW!
 * It should be hopefully be ready tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ok good luck with that. by the way I have added all the confirmed new series and 'entry' series as confirmed by marvel with reference links. I have just written their names, so do not forget to add their brief description also , which you can find from reference links. Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I reformatted waves one and two, I'll do All-New Marvel NOW next. Also as a reminder you should fully cite your references not just bare URLs.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * i know and sorry for that. actually due to some problems i wasn't able to do that. Hope you will set everything . Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Publication Date section problem
In some cases like Journey into Mystery and Red She-Hulk you have written their publication as to be when those titles ended their run but in case of wolverine and x-men you have written a timeframe during which it was bannered NOW! . so what do you mean by this? I mean what information are you writing under publication date heading? Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Publication Date section problem for Rebranded titles
I think only starting month is enough for titles which are re-branded in All-New Marvel NOW! because writing their span from starting month to just pre-branded month didn't make sense. Publication span should be for those titles which are ended. Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

New titles
Hey, I'm just leaving this here for anyone that wants to add it or I may add it later if no one has. Savage Hulk and Deadly Hands of Kung-Fu are labeled as All-New Marvel Now! and Deathlok and Guardians 3000 have been announced, though I dont know if they'll be All-New Marvel Now!. NTC TNT (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Avengers Now!
It seems that Avengers Now! is the new phase of Marvel Now!. I'm gonna hold off on changing anything for now, but I'm assuming that we just treat it like All-New Marvel Now!. If theres a different way to handle this, go ahead and just reply here. NTC TNT (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Create a new article for "List of current ongoing Marvel Comics titles"
I'm not suggesting we get rid of this article, or even alter it that much. But I think there should be an article that lists current Marvel titles regardless of their affiliation/non-affiliation/loose affiliation with any overall marketing strategy. I think we should have a similar page for DC, of course. Maybe even for Image and Dark Horse. For imprints smaller than that, I think they would lack notability. Even Diamond Distribution, which distributes all comics in the US, just lumps the rest together. Anyway, yeah, we should make a new article for ongoings. I think that's what 99% of the people are looking for when they come to this page. While the stuff about branding is certainly encyclopedia worthy, so is a list of titles itself and that's what people are looking for. The Secretary of Funk (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel NOW!. 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/20130927115401/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=41551 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=41551

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) 15:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye is now in Marvel NOW!
I'm not sure where precisely the comic sits in this framework, but the new round of Hawkeye (Kate Bishop) comics have had the Marvel NOW! branding since sometime in 2016. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)