Jump to content

Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 15 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Update: I've added this discussion from my talk page to clarify my reasons for closure. Jerm (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary

Hi! Thank you for your recent closure of Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Requested move 15 October 2019, but I would query whether it was appropriate for a non-admin to close that particular discussion. There was roughly a 2-1 majority against the proposed move, but virtually all of the oppose !votes were either simple !votes with no rationale, or rationales that were clearly contradicted by the presented evidence or by simple logic. If all such !votes were discarded, there was (by my admittedly biased count) a clear majority in favour of the move.

Given that you didn't address this point in your closure, I suspect you may not have noticed it, which is why I'm coming here to request clarification.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Hello and thank you for asking. Before I elaborate, I just want you to know that closures are based on consensus, not votes. Arguments must adhere to policy and guidelines, and those who perform closures must also consider arguments from previous closures via WP:RMCOMMENT. I'll try to summarize. Now it's quite obvious that the arguments from those who supported the move were all based on MOS:CT. And even though some editors in opposition did not link policy for their arguments, it was clear they were referring to WP:OFFICIAL & WP:COMMONNAME by primary sources. See arguments: [1] (Note that other editors echoed Trailblazer101's argument to support their own "per Trailblazer101" but there's nothing wrong with that.), ([2] & [3]), [4], [5], & [6] (I probably missed someone). And Amakuru (Opposed move) was the only person willing to provide any statistics for the most searched title. Calidum also noted that there could be exceptions to avoid the "standard" spelling per WP:TITLETM. My final decision though was based on "Discussion". In that conversation, there were disagreements on what was considered a reliable source. That led me to close. Overall, the whole move request was in a complete disagreement (No consensus). Jerm (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know about consensus versus votes, which is why I think (in my admittedly biased stated) that most or all of the "oppose" comments need to be disregarded as tendentious or disruptive. They claimed they were arguing based on OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME, but consistently ignored evidence that OFFICIAL can't apply (official sources are not consistent) and that COMMONNAME actually favoured neither title over the other since the difference in favour of one, if there even is one, is negligible. "most searched" wasn't actually something Amakuru presented any evidence for or even claimed to be presenting evidence for -- he linked a bare Google search indicating that most hits (on the first page) capitalize. Trailblazer's argument was nonsense (two times before the film was released is not "countless" and at no point was the "declining" based on consensus to do so or on reliable sources) and so not only would Trailblazer's argument need to be dismissed as such but anyone who said "per Trailblazer" would also need to have their reasoning questioned. Spanneraol claimed their argument was for "the way the studio named the film", but poster stylization is not the same as "how the studio names the film", as I and others pointed out... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Trailblazer made it clear in his argument that the current title is supported by the official websites of Marvel and Sony via primary sources, and no one bothered to counter Amakuru's hits with hits of "Spider-Man Far from Home". Those who support the move always state that there are a mixed amount of sources but never provide the search results/hits. Primary sources (excluding visual designs) such as the websites of Sony and Marvel have always been ignored by the those who support the move in favor of secondary-sources. Finding the search hits is key to satisfying COMMONAME. And if there are truly a near mixed amount of results, then the most logical thing to do is to establish the title on primary sources. And with that, I'll end my part of the discussion. Jerm (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home → Spider-Man: Far from Home – Poster stylization is generally not considered a good reason to capitalize or not (strictly speaking, the logo stylizes the title as SPIDER-MAN: Far From HomE or perhaps SPIDER-MAN: Far FrOm HOmE anyway), so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works should prevail. Secondary sources seem to be fairly split on whether to capitalize "from" in this case, with the review quotes on the first page of RottenTomatoes including examples like I like that "Far From Home" is trying, As a standalone movie, Far from Home is fine, Spider-Man: Far From Home is a visually incoherent, Spider-Man: Far from Home builds upon what's come before and so large that Far From Home is more, and even the aggregator's original prose (?) being split between Peter Parker returns in Spider-Man: Far From Home and Spider-Man: Far from Home stylishly sets the stage. This split is presumably due to confusion with some people following the film's logo and others following conventional writing style, and there is probably also a fair bit of "secondary" sources consciously or unconsciously mirroring the Wikipedia status quo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Neutral: While I would prefer to go by the official Marvel and Sony pages for the film, I'm not opposed to renaming if there are convincing reasons to do so. Starforce13 22:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If reliable sources are inconsistant then that seems like a very compelling reason to follow MOS:TITLECAPS. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This has been proposed countless times before and has been declined just as much. Since Marvel and Sony officially call it "Spider-Man: Far From Home", which is the same as used on its website and official marketing, that overrules whatever third-party online websites and critics use the title format, as those are their own and not supported by the official studios behind the film. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mike210381 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:TMCAPS, "When sources are mixed, follow the standard formatting and capitalisation used for proper names". The sources are mixed here, and proper name capitalisation is "from". Lazz_R 20:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The Capital letters section of the Manual of Style mentions the word 'from' in two instances: first as an example for uncapitalized Prepositions containing four letters or fewer, and then after the potential exception, in which it still says to Continue to lower-case common four-letter (or shorter) prepositions like "into" and "from". In no place does the MoS state that 'from' is a common exception or that it should be. This is not a case like Star Trek Into Darkness where it was the start of a subtitle as well as a preposition, here it's just used as a preposition in the middle of a subtitle. As Hijiri88 correctly states in the proposal, there is no clear dominant in secondary reliable sources of any of the two options, so the common name argument is out of the question. In these cases, The MoS recommends going by the general rule, not by what a primary source such as Marvel's or Sony's official pages state. Hence, it shouldn't be capitalized. El Millo (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was already discussed here, in a previous discussion, and didn't find consensus. I don't think anything has changed since then. A substantial majority of sources title it "Far From Home" so, much like Bend It Like Beckham, k.d. lang etc, given that this isn't a close call, we should follow the sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: A substantial majority of sources title it "Far From Home" doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence, especially now that the film has been released and more reliable secondary sources are available. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, other than a few (but still a minority) of Rotten Tomatoes contributors downcasing it, I'm not sure what other evidence there is? I know we take this with a pinch of salt, but the trusty Google search shows what I would call a substantial majority using upper case. Ditto a book search.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Which official naming conventions? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The way the studio names the film. Spanneraol (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The two studios have used multiple slightly different stylizations with regard to how to capitalize the words of the title. The final poster has several letters written as upper-case, but with the first letter of each word written larger so as to imply head-caps. Early posters did not do this. What's more, most of the time (on their actual websites, as opposed to the meta-data used for search engine previews) both studios seem to write the name of the film IN ALL-CAPS. As a result, reliable secondary sources are split on how to write the title. That you say The way the studio names the film. as though the capitalization of the first letters of certain words constituted a change of name appears to indicate that you do not understand the problem: early (I think?) posters (appear to have?) used different capitalization,[7] but this certainly does not mean the title of the film changed. Under these circumstances, we really should resort to our standard titling conventions.[8][9][10][11][12] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
First, it is extremely bad form that you changed my comment from what I wrote.. second the only studio that matters is Sony [13] the copyright owner and distributor of the film. Spanneraol (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: First off, my apologies for accidentally altering your comment. I was editing on a smartphone on my way to work, and appear to have accidentally "pasted" where I meant to "copy" without noticing. However, if you actually read my comment, it should be obvious that it was an accident rather than malicious (I butchered my own comment, specifically the part where I tried to quote you, in the same fashion), so actually the greater breech of conduct was in your assuming bad faith on my part by telling me it was "bad form" rather than cheerfully laughing off my mistake. Anyway, I saw that URL before you showed it to me (again, smartphone -- it would have been more trouble than it was worth to copy the link); it says SPIDER-MAN™: FAR FROM HOME twice and Spider-Man: Far From Home only once. This doesn't really matter, however, since it's a style choice that they have been inconsistent on (earlier posters had it stylized with "FAR FROM HOME" or "far from home" written in uniform case), and so we really should follow our own style conventions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last time this came up. Calidum 02:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: I should also point to WP:TITLETM, which allows the use of so-called non-standard formatting if reliable sources prefer such formatting. This doesn't mean I agree "From" is non-standard, only that our policy on article titles would allow such an exception even if it were. Calidum 15:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Calidum: Last time you opposed per common name, do you still think Far From Home is the common name, even with the examples Hijiri 88 brought up in the proposal? El Millo (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The film came out. That's a pretty substantial change. In April all we had were primary sources, and the best one we could use was the poster, but per my opening comment that's not very useful, especially when secondary sources are split. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The sources in the article favor "From." This has always been the case. I should also point you to WP:BLUDGEON. Calidum 03:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The sources in the article, with the exception of the "Reception" section (which you'll have to convince me favour "From" -- if they come from the first page of RT then they are probably split down the middle), are either primary sources or unreliable regurgitations of primary sources written by people who weren't sure if Mysterio was a villain (see here for an explanation of why such sources really shouldn't form the basis of this article in the long term). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
the official title But which one? bulk of reliable coverage Umm ... citation needed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Trailblazer101. Enjoyer of World (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per last RM. The problem stems from the overly rigid MOS guideline being incorrectly applied to WP:TITLES policy. Most often in the real world, prepositions of 4 letters are capitalized. Our MOS is an anomaly that needs to be corrected. At the very least, common use should prevail when discussing any 4 letter prepositions, and in this case, the common use is to capitalize. It is the intended name used by the filmmakers. I recommend that this RM be closed with an indefinite moratorium on any more attempts to request a move based on the From/from question. -- Netoholic @ 11:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Netoholic: Most often in the real world, prepositions of 4 letters are capitalized. Are you sure? My employer (a translation company) has that as a policy, but in my experience most real-world style guides either don't distinguish based on word length (Chicago says basically the same thing we do) or capitalize prepositions of 5 letters or more (Microsoft Word's grammar checker adheres to such a rule). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sources don't matter here, because this is a style issue. Disagreement between sources is only proof that those sources have different style guides. Articles on Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia's style guide only. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - First, ortography. Second, it does not make sense to change the page to "Far from Home" because Wikipedia would be the only source online that has this implemented, possibly weakening our credibility. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - Also, there are no online sources that support changing this title. All reliable sources list as "Far From Home". Changing it to anything else would doing so without sufficient proof that its done on reliable sources. Heck, the central concept of Wikipedia is provinding information with reliable sources that back up the info, creating credibility. Credibility comes before formatting. If something can not be proven by sources, than its automatically innacurate data, regardless of formatting or other ideas. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Cardei012597: Both Metacritic's page and Rotten Tomatoes' consensus have it as Far from Home, along with all the others examples in the proposal above. El Millo (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely hope the closer actually reads all of these !votes and notices that a lot of them seem to be completely out of touch with reality and the evidence presented so far... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Claiming that most of the people in the discussion are "completely out of touch with reality" really isn't helping your case here. ARZ100 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no solid reason presented that would support a change from what has been a stable title since the existence of the article under this name (i.e. a year and a half ago); nothing has changed since the last RM two RMs, so why fix what clearly isn't broken to the majority? Guidelines are just that: guidelines, not policies. -- /Alex/21 05:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the above editor has a history of opposing RMs just because I'm the one who requested them,[14] apparently because of some twisted attempt to get back at me for a few times I called him out on frivolous ANI threads. I'm not saying that there aren't good-faith reasons to disagree with me here (at least two thirds of the "oppose" !votes appear to be either good-faith mistakes or people who genuinely disagree with me for some reason that they haven't articulated very well), just that the above !vote should be looked at in the appropriate context. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you intend to BLUDGEON every opposing comment? If anything, that's the major bad-faith factor that will be looked at when closing this RM. But of course you think this is all about you. I edit a great deal of Marvel-related television articles, as you well know, and came here whilst reading the Phase Three article. Not all about you, sorry to disappoint. -- /Alex/21 05:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
No, just some of the ones that don't make sense or seem especially dubious. And not even all of those. BTW, as I clearly stated immediately above, I don't think 90% of the oppose !votes are "about me" (your words) -- but that last time you showed up in an RM and opposed it with a completely ludicrous rationale most certainly was about getting under my skin, since you practically said as much. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
7 out of 10 is almost all, sorry. Still not "[my] words", but sure. The last time we were in an RM together was almost two years ago; get over it. Comment on content, not editors; clearly you have nothing further to contribute to my !vote. -- /Alex/21 06:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Update; 8 out of 11. -- /Alex/21 08:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I have never seen clearer evidence that you are hounding/trolling me. You've said your piece, now please leave. Who I choose to respond to and why are either relevant enough that it is not BLUDGEONing for me to do so, or it is even more irrelevant and BLUDGEON-y for you to keep honing in on it for the purpose of annoying me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON: Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view.
You can't tell me that I am not allowed to contribute to this discussion. You do not own this article or its talk page. -- /Alex/21 09:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on dual grounds. First of all, the linked policy is overly prescriptive and should be relaxed some anyway. Second, even if the policy is taken as mostly fine, there are clear exceptions. This case is not hard; there are zero reliable sources that use the lowercased version. You'd think that a 100% usage of "Far From Home" would make this an obvious and easy exception to grant, but here we are. SnowFire (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@SnowFire: As has already been pointed out numerous times in this discussion "zero reliable sources" and "100% usage" don't seem to be supported by the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This was investigated before (and long before Wikipedia could be accused of influencing the Internet). Everybody uses "Far From Home". Your own evidence above confirms this - Rotten Tomatoes and the vast, vast majority of reviews there use "Far From Home". But this isn't even the right methodology to begin with; better would be searching for Far From Home sources first, then seeing what casing they use. If you aren't explicitly looking for the 1 Internet review that confirms your preferred casing - which could easily be just a mistake - you'll see nothing but a parade of "Far From Home." "I found 1 review out of 500 that uses my casing" isn't an argument for mixed use, that's a clear case of consistent use of the capital F. SnowFire (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88:After reading all of the above, I must admit I became hesitant to even state my opinion. At the very top you invite everybody to "feel free to state your position". I find your reactions to be somewhat abrasive. We're all volunteers here and I'm pretty sure the main goal for all of us is to make Wikipedia better. Can't we all just get along? SassyCollins (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been already discussed before, and I don't feel that things have changed. I still think that "From" is still the best option. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The posters all say "From" and the fact that the sources are split means we should probably look to the official sources and see what they use that being "From". There is no reason for the change it is just personal preference at this point so again we should use what is on the posters and official websites because all the other sources are completely split on which one they use. Also this has already been discussed before and there is no reason for this to be opened back up. ARZ100 (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: Also your claim that now the sources are probably mirroring the capitalisation that Wikipedia is using is silly. Wikipedia is influential sure, but it is not influential enough to change the way people capitalise one letter in one short word From a movie title.
    • The posters also say "HomE". Should we capitalize the e? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • No, they don't. That's small caps, aka a lowercase letter in other fonts/contexts. SnowFire (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Has Sony clarified that, or are you using original research here? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
          • If by "original research" you mean "looked at the poster", yes. First off, "Home" is in a funny stylized font to begin with that should be entirely thrown out, just look at the "o". Secondly, look at the size of the e - it lines up perfectly with the lowercase letters. If it was really HomE, then the top of the "e" should line up with the height of the "H"; instead it lines up with the height of the "o" and "m", so that is small caps. As far as your demands for a source from Sony, it's great you asked, you can check all of Sony's press releases - they all use "Far From Home" with From capitalized (e.g. this press release). (Disclaimer: To me personally, this discussion is irrelevant anyway, I'm not basing my article title opinion off the posters nor the press releases. However. Claiming that the posters say "HomE" is obviously incorrect, so don't do that.) SnowFire (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks for giving a thoughtful and eloquent response to a question I asked with flippancy and snark. I agree that it's an irrelevant point. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
              • For what it's worth, I already pointed out the problem with the stylization of "F" as "big caps" and "E" as "small caps" in that alternate (earlier?) versions of the logo appear to have "FAR FROM HOME" entirely in small caps, and it's only later versions that clearly have "F", "F" and "H" clearly distinguished from the other letters. I'd be happy to accept the logo seen here, here and here is an unofficial fan creation if some evidence could be offered of such, but so far none of the "oppose" !votes have even acknowledged the apparent discrepancy, let alone denied or disproved it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:CT. Wikipedia has its own style guide, which trumps external sources. Darkday (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Trailblazer, Amakuru, and SnowFire, who sum it up well, based on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLETM, and WP:OFFICIALNAME. "From" seems more common than "from", and the official/trademarked name. – Levivich 16:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Note: WP:PRIMARY sources - Disney/Marvel and Sony consistently use "Far From Home" in their websites, DVD covers and posters and therefore should take priority over third party sources. And if we use MOS:TMCAPS, the only time secondary/independent sources come to play is when the primary sources/owners are mixed or all lowercase. That's not the case here. So, there's no reason to ignore primary source and go with 3rd party.Starforce13 20:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
MoS/Trademarks' "in a nutshell" states: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners. Starforce13, please cite the exact quote that you think means that primary sources take precedence over independent secondary sources and capitalization rules. El Millo (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
MOS:TMCAPS : "For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources." - that clearly implies that independent sources don't necessarily matter as long as the first clause is not met. However, WP:MOSTM in a nutshell seems to give the most clear rule/guideline. So, that's strong enough to move me from "oppose" to "neutral." Starforce13 21:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Then, please state it in the Survey section. El Millo (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The DVD cover actually stylizes it "SPIDER-MAN: Far From HomE". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, Disney, Marvel, and Sony are not at all consistent on this. Earlier versions of the logo were much more ambiguous about the headcaps, and if we go by the pages themselves rather than the Gooogle previews Sony at least seem to prefer allcaps. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Do all votes count? If someone opposes but offers no arguments, does it count? If someone's arguments aren't supported by policies, do those count? El Millo (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: In theory, no. In practice, yes; if 90 people !vote one way but none of them have decent arguments, and 10 people the other way with reasoned, policy-based arguments, a good closer should close in favour of the latter, but in reality that will invariably lead to a review whereby most of the 90 people will again show up and request overturning, and most closers of those reviews should ignore such !votes, but in reality the red tape is too much of a hassle. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Policies reflect community consensus, not the other way around, barring very rare Office/Legal actions (e.g. a lawsuit happens). If 90 editors in good standing say X and 10 editors in good standing say not X - and there's not some sort of canvassing / meatpuppet problem going on - this likely implies that either there's a merited exception to the guidelines, or the guideline is not reflective of the actual community consensus and should be updated. (Otherwise, how else would policies ever be updated? Wikipedia's policies today are different than 2004, so "policy based reasoning" in 2004 isn't a guarantee of perpetual accuracy. Same with 2019.) SnowFire (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, SnowFire, that most voters' reasons are based on false claims, like there are zero reliable sources that use the lowercased version, which we have already proven false. For example, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes' consensus —even though in other parts it's capitalized—, and many reviews. That is the main argument of most opposers, who apparently believe something false, or partly false, to be true. El Millo (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I was responding to the abstract case of "what happens when there's a policy that says not X, but 90 people say X". In this abstract case - the answer is, as usual, "it depends." If 90 people are all making the same "mistake", it may well be that this mistake is not actually considered an error by them, or there's some failure to agree on reality between supporters and opposers. This cuts both ways, too; what if both the 90 claim the 10 are making a factual error, and the 10 claim the 90 are making a factual error? Back where we started, then. In extreme cases where there clearly is a factual misunderstanding going on, sure, maybe the votes of the 90 will be tossed - but about the only case I can think of this actually happening are copyright discussions, where there really are genuine misunderstandings of country X's policies, and closers need to defer to people who actually know the rules on copyright status of works in Iran made in 1972 rather than people misapplying their own understanding of US law in good faith.
For the specific case of this RM, this is a case of mild hyperbole, not "factual error". I have seen 0 high quality reliable sources using lowercase f in "from". Yes, I recognize that supporters have scraped up a few bottom-of-the-barrel low-quality sources that use lowercase "f". This is a difference in opinion, not an error in fact. SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@SnowFire:Do you consider Metacritic, RT and IMDb low-quality or bottom-of-the-barrel? El Millo (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
IMDb? Definitely. IMDb has never been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. -- /Alex/21 21:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you User:Calidum for this. Now, if you and pretty much all the other oppose !voters could either make sure to do that before an RM is opened, or stop replying to such RMs as though it were the OP's responsibility to have been watching this page months or years before the film came out, that would be even more helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"No Endgame for Spidey" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect No Endgame for Spidey. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

Adam, same question I asked on Talk:Captain Marvel (film). Also, the RM close was problematic, since virtually all of the "oppose" !votes did so based on patently false information, or just cast !votes without even providing a rationale -- how is the RM having closed relevant to begin with? And what did you mean by "again"? Was that another snide remark directed at me and how I should have used my telepathy to know that the page had been RMed a dozen times before? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MJ Full Name Edit War

There seems to be an endless edit war with an IP on whether Michelle's full name is "Michelle Jones". I thought this was settled but I don't want to revert the IP because I agree with them on some level. There's a cited source but it happens to be a fan Vanity Fair analysis article comparing elements from one fiction to another... so, it doesn't really count as news piece or a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. It's no different from fan articles you'd find on comicbook.com or screenrant. Michelle Jones is never officially mentioned in the movies or by Marvel or Sony. There was a video uploaded on a Disney YouTube account but I wouldn't count that as reliable either. Does anyone have an unquestionable source preferably from Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety or Marvel's website confirming the full name as Michelle Jones? Starforce13 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

From Variety. Mike210381 (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I've added it, hopefully it will reduce the constant reverts. Starforce13 01:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Caps within the article

Somebody needs to fix the caps within the article. --Dan Wescher (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS for the move, given that three move requests have ended in a 'no consensus'. Additionally, page moves are to be performed using the move function, and not cut and paste. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Head's up on the hatnote to The Blip

Hi regular Spider-Man: Far From Home page editors,

If you are wondering why there is a hatnote to Blip, it is because of the result of an RfD discussion in which consensus favoured retargeting The Blip to Spider-Man: Far From Home with a hatnote to the Blip disambiguation page.

As such, please leave the hatnote in place, along with the corresponding hidden {{anchor}} tag.

Thanks and happy editing,
--Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Friendly tag to DeluxeVegan as a head's up to this, since he or she seems to be a regular page editor. Doug Mehus T·C 18:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit discussion for Plot wording

Hi page editors,

I've opened this edit discussion per Looney Guy's reversion of another editor's reversion of his earlier edit. Per bold, revert, discuss, you guys need to hash it out. If you want, ping me and I am willing to be a non-involved editor closer.

If you want to establish an RfC, just write a brief proposal in a new sub-section, with a timestamp close by, and then below your sub-heading add {{rfc|arts|media}}

Friendly pings: Facu-el Millo and DeluxeVegan

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've requested temporary full page protection for a short time, so you guys can discuss this. Looks like this film has a history of content disputes. Talk it out, then hug it out. Doug Mehus T·C 22:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

continued edit war over Michelle Jones

This edit battle is silly.. plus the consensus was not to include the name.. and the disputed text "her full name Michelle Jones is not included in the film" really doesn't belong.. as it IS NOT IN THE FILM. Move on already. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s like saying mentioning people whose scenes were cut shouldn’t be in the article…--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
They wouldn't be in the main cast list if they were cut.. it would be listed later.. plus there was a whole discussion on this issue previously. Look at the archives. Find a source from a legitimate source using that name.. no one has yet found one. Spanneraol (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
You’re not even understanding the analogy. You’re not reading the edit summaries. You’re not helping at all. You’re accusing me of doing things I didn’t do while also accusing me of not doing things I did do. You’re being ridiculous--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
You are engaged in an edit war.. it takes two to edit war. You are both insulting each other in edit summaries.Spanneraol (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
If it takes two to edit war then why was I the only one blocked for edit warring in previous instances? WP:Disruptive editing states “ If tendentious editor continues reverting (use Disruptive editing templates) then use the (3RR template) then post on the Edit warring noticeboard. I did the UW-1, but then went to 3RR because he wouldn’t stop reverting. You’re yelling at me for following the rules--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is an edit war occurring on both sides. Also, consensus can change at any time. Personally, I tend to support the expanded text related to MJ, though I haven't seen this film. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Compromise: Include "Her full name, Michelle Jones, is not given in the film[,]" in a footnote (one of those "efn" notes and then in a "Notes" section) instead of in-text like this. Could everyone get behind this instead? I think that flows better anyway, and someone could still mouse over the superscript note and read this. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • While I wouldn't care either way, this was already discussed at Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 2#About MJ at length. The only user engaging in the edit war on the other side is a blocked user (more specifically, the one who started the previous linked discussion) evading their ban, so WP:BANREVERT applies. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    DeluxeVegan, I still think the footnote is a good idea and would appease both parties and not restart a previous discussion. If the editor is engaging in a ban, why has an SPI not been started? Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with DeluxeVegan. While I don't strongly care one way or the other, the IP user seems to be acting in bad faith, especially since they've also sent death threats to editors they don't agree with in the past. If their intentions were truly accuracy, they wouldn't hide behind multiple IPs. They would just create an account and have a civil discussion in talk to seek a new consensus. Starforce13 16:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Starforce13, Okay, I'm confused, who is evading the ban? The IP user in the 80.* range or Simmerdon3448? Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dmehus, the IP user is the problem and the one evading the ban. Simmerdon3448 was only blocked for engaging them and violating the 3RR rule. Starforce13 16:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    In my opinion both the IP and Simmerdon deserved to be banned since they each reverted the other repeatedly. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, they both violated 3RR. Starforce13 16:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    To be clear, you were all engaging in an edit war whether you technically violated 3RR or not. If I were an administrator, I'd be inclined to give you all a 24 hour block for failing to engage in a rational discussion irrespective of whatever discussions(s) had previously taken place on the matter (since consensus can change), with a longer ban-evasion block for the IP user (whose "crimes" are more serious).
    What may need to happen here is this article may need 1RR sanctions and a 1RR editnotice related to edit warring. Doug Mehus T·C 16:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    I am afraid I disagree. Are you proposing that we engage in a discussion with a blocked user? Yes, consensus can change, but proposals from blocked users gaming the system must not be encouraged. The normal standards for edit warring clear do not apply here, as stated in the first sentence of WP:BANREVERT. Anyone is free to revert such edits without regard for 3RR.
    As for the note, I think it would be a good idea, but I don't have any strong opinion about it either way. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    DeluxeVegan, I meant a discussion with Simmerdon3448 and the other editors, not necessarily the IP user (though his or her points may be considered indirectly in the discussion). Doug Mehus T·C 17:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dmehus I think you're confused. There was no one reverting Simmerdon3448 or any other registered user besides the IP account. All the registered accounts that did a revert were reverting vandalism by that IP. Please look at the edits closely. Starforce13 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally oppose moving the text to a footnote. For one thing, it wouldn't actually change what we are saying so is not at all a "compromise". It also is completely unnecessary, as we use notes to include content that we otherwise cannot or should not (for instance, adding non-plot content to the plot section), and this is not that case. The cast section (as we have it) is specifically for real world discussion about the characters and not plot or film-only content. The argument against this info is that it isn't in the film, but that is exactly why it is included. We are following the guidelines by listing her as "MJ", and then helping the reader by explaining why (with multiple reliable sources to support that explanation). Caving to this argument with a "compromise" for the sake of ending the edit war is backwards thinking. I would instead support further protections here if that is an option. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I am willing to review the article. You may have to wait for a few days before I provide a full, detailed review.

My first observation here is that in my opinion the greatest potential problem with the article concerns copyright. Using the Earwig Copyvio Detector tool here, I got a result of "Violation Suspected 97.1%". At first, I thought that the very high "violation suspected" result was due to the use of one online source, this one, but looking further, that website isn't cited in the article at all. For various reasons, which I'll discuss further, I don't believe that any contributor to the article has copied anything from that website. This is almost certainly a case where an external website is copying Wikipedia content rather than vice versa, creating an impression of an extreme copyright problem where none exists. However, even setting that result aside as a false positive that should probably be disregarded, there are potential copyright problems with the use of two sources, this one, which produces a result of "Violation Possible 43.5% confidence", and this one, which produces a result of "Violation Possible 42.9% confidence." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The first good article criterion is that the article be "Well written". I believe the article meets this criterion. However, I have the following minor criticism. The article states, "Each of the Elementals are inspired by other Spider-Man villains, such as the water one by Hydro-Man and the fire one by Molten Man, but they are not called such in the film." That sentence isn't quite grammatical. The problem could be solved with a minor rewrite. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

2. The second good article criterion is that the article be, "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing, "no copyright violations nor plagiarism." The article does not meet this criterion at present. As I have indicated above, this is not because of that "Violation Suspected 97.1%" Earwig result. Earwig is an imperfect automated tool, the results of which have to be interpreted by human beings. For various reasons, I believe that the very high Earwig result is due to someone copying from an older version of the Wikipedia article and placing it on their blog. For example, if you look at that blog, you can see that it actually includes numbers representing Wikipedia citations, which indicates that the content there was taken from Wikipedia and not the reverse. There is no reason to think that Wikipedia editors have copied from that blog. However, two other sources do seem to pose a problem, this one, and this one. The article needs to be rewritten to make less use of those sources; when it does, the problem here will have been solved. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

3. The third good article criterion is that the article be, "Broad in its coverage". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

4. The fourth good article criterion is that the article be, "Neutral". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

5. The fifth good article criterion is that the article be, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Despite past conflict and edit warring at the article, I'd say the article currently meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this review Freeknowledge! I have re-written the section on the Elementals, and paraphrased those two problematic sources. Let me know if there is anything else. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll review what you've done, assess the article according to the remaining good article criterion, and get back to you. Final overall verdict should come soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

6. The sixth good article criterion is that the article be, "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". The article meets this criterion. It contains a small but sufficient number of appropriate images. No apparent copyright problem with them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Final overall verdict coming soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of the review, the most decisive issue here is copyright. The Earwig Copyvio Detector tool produces a result of "Violation Suspected 97.1% confidence". To some that may seem like a damning result that makes it necessary to fail the article. However, I believe it mainly shows that Earwig is a less than fully reliable tool that needs to be used with care. If I thought that there had been borrowing from this blog post, then I certainly would fail the article. However, while some kind of copying has obviously occurred, I am confident that it is copying from Wikipedia to that blog post, not copying from the blog post to Wikipedia. This is an important issue, so I'll explain my reasoning in some detail. If you look here you can see that much of the text in the blog post that resembles the article's text is description of the film's plot. The plot of the film is publicly available information, however, and it makes no sense to suppose that editors at Spider-Man: Far From Home would need to copy from a blog post to get a description of it. Chronology also needs to be taken into account. Spider-Man: Far From Home was released theatrically in the United States on July 2, while the blog post is dated to October 24. Editors at Spider-Man: Far From Home would thus have had months to watch the film and write an account of its plot for Wikipedia before that blog post appeared, so common sense indicates that the blog post is copied from the Wikipedia article and not the reverse. Another key indicator that the copying is from Wikipedia to the blog post and not the reverse is that the blog post contains numbers in brackets that represent Wikipedia citations, such as "[54]". Again evaluating the issue in terms of common sense, these numbers indicate that the content originated on Wikipedia. I will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Numan Acar as Dimitri, and “Quentin Beck”

Although only credited as Dimitri in the film, the character’s surname is revealed when the character is referred to as “D. Smerdyakov” (with further information redacted) when Peter Parker uses his E.D.I.T.H glasses on him alongside everyone else on his school tour bus, making his full name “Dimitri Smerdyakov”, the civilian identity of Chameleon, hence my linking to that page, and specifying this information in a note of my own.

Hence, my source for this information is the film itself. I shared a screenshot with an editor here once about it. Besides the point on it, I do believe this rendition of the character will be a Skrull, given the source character’s abilities and who they were truly working for in the film, though that is not something for current article mention.

As for my source for “Quentin Beck” being an alias:

Mysterio: To Guterman!

All: Guterman. To Guterman.

Mysterio: The story you created of a soldier from another Earth named Quentin fighting space monsters in Europe is totally ridiculous, and apparently exactly the kind of thing people will believe right now; I mean, everybody bought it!

All: Gutes! To Gutes. Guterman!

Thank you. 83.70.60.84 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a version of the Edith scene. It's so hard to make out that name, that honestly it isn't something to try to justify including given he is just credited as Dimitri. As for the other part (seen here at 2:30), that's a pretty weak claim and WP:OR on your part anyways. He's Quentin Beck. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The letters of the last name aren't even visible. El Millo (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We don't usually put much stock in those small visual Easter eggs anyway. As for Quentin, I think you could easily interpret that scene as him making fun of his own name as well so it's definitely WP:OR to suggest your specific reading here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: The name is clearly visible if one is watching on a larger screen, say in a cinema. 83.70.60.84 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
But again. SUCH a small visual Easter egg like Adam said. It's not something we can reliable work with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever(talk) 20:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


Spider-Man: Far From Home → Spider-Man: Far from Home – The film's name is only stylized as "Far From Home". Proper nouns should always have the word "from" begin with a lowercase "F"! —ÐW (talk/contribs) 09:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There have been three requested moves already to that exact title: on 14 July 2018, on 26 March 2019, and on 15 October 2019. The three resulted in no consensus, given that, while it is incorrect to capitalize the from according to our Manual of Style, the wide majority of reliable sources used the title with the From capitalized. Common use trumps the Manual of Style. Dan Wescher: do you have evidence of a shift in the capitalization used by the majority of sources? El Millo (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Just because a bunch of websites capitalize the name incorrectly, that doesn't mean it should be capitalized that way here. Take It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown for example. The logo capitalizes it in sentence case, the page still has its current name. @Facu-el_Millo: Donald Trump has nothing to do with this. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 05:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It isn't about the logo. It's about what the wide majority of reliable sources do, which is more than a buch of websites. Seriously, if you want you can investigate and see which one is actually more used in reliable sources. According to our policies and guidelines, and as far as I understand it, if both capitalizations are used in somewhat equal quantity, the "correct" capitalization is the one we should choose. If you think the majority uses the lower-case from, come back with the evidence. I know I'd support it then. El Millo (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per this guideline, and this precedent. Above and beyond that, however, if the individual making this proposal had bothered to do their research, it doesn't matter whether this recommendation is based on grammar or proper English syntax. The fact of the matter is that the MCU as a whole capitalizes the word "From", and, as a consequence, every reliable source out there in the public domain about this second MCU Spider-Man movie uses the upper case. When there is more than one good reason to not do something, that should be a clear indicator that it shouldn't be done. So unless the nominator wants to put in the work to get the word "from" lower-cased in every usuage by every source, including the MCU itself (which I doubt), then Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and precedents are pretty clear-cut here. Simple as that. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am using common sense. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 07:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Wescher: who are you answering to and what are you talking about? El Millo (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It was about the link that JG person posted. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 07:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:TITLETM says "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." It has been shown that almost every reliable source uses the current formatting, so we follow those sources. -- Calidum 13:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snowy close. There is almost no reason to move this beyond the improper breakdown of a proper noun phrase to try to impose a different capitalisation to something already universally capitalised the current way. "Spider-Man: Far From Home" is a proper noun phrase in its full length, not another type of noun that we can impose our own capitalisation upon. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not true. The only reason we keep this article titled as it is is because it's currently used by a majority of reliable sources. If that weren't the case, the from should and would be lower-cased. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works and MOS:TITLECAPS. El Millo (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll be damned, didn't know about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) § Titles of works. Either way, it's still a solid oppose on the fact that all sources use a capital From. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Navboxes are pointless linkdumpsters, their uselessness is indicated by the fact that they are hidden (collapsed) by default, and not only that some editors have seen fit to further hide them by subgrouping them inside even more Navboxes. Useful templates wouldn't be hidden away like this. Editors have very little tolerance for useless, redundant, and irrelvant "See Also" sections but strangely there seems endless tolerance for Navboxes and no sensible limit on including only the most relevant Navboxes and you know actually bothering to show them. I don't see why anything more than the one Navbox of the most primary relevance is even needed, and why it is not expanded by default (you know, if it is relevant then show it). The guidelines at WP:NAVBOXES even says "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article". I'll say that again, none of these Navboxes are strictly required, and I'm not even asking that this useless junk be removed entirely ...

TLDR: I'm merely suggesting remove one layer of hiding and subgrouping, for consistency with the other Spider-Man film articles. -- 109.79.65.28 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Templates, if done well, rate among the most useful things on Wikipedia. As maps to Wikipedia's topic collection they present readers with a bonanza of options to learn more. Of course these five collapsed templates should be in visible space. Compare their vertical length with the vertical space that two or two and a half references take up on this page. Bottom line: template respect. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You claim they are useful so then show them! Don't make a straw man argument about them not wasting space, I never claimed they waste space (Wikipedia is not short of space). My point is that they are largely irrelevant but that if they are to be included they should not be repeatedly subgrouped and further hidden. The hiding of Navboxes on this is article not even consistent with the other Spider-Man film articles.
Examine for a moment what you are saying. Not only are the Navboxes not shown expanded they are also, further hidden by subgrouping. Even if you are going to continue to argue that one some Navboxes might be useful, do you honestly believe all those Navboxes are really relevant? Wikipedia editors show the good sense to include only the primary or most relevant genre for a film but when it comes to Navboxes there seems to be no limit to including barely relevant Navboxes, and then to deliberately hide the irrelevant mess. Navboxes are not shown at all in mobile Wikipedia.
I'd really love to see some proper quantative analysis of the claim that Navboxes are useful from the technical people behind Wikipedia. Editors eventually learned not to use unnecessary bold everywhere MOS:BOLD, editors learned not to link only more important and relevant keywords WP:OVERLINK, it is about time we learned "If done well" we would include only the most relevant Navboxes, not every possible Navbox and "If done well" actually show them, not hide them. -- 109.79.169.6 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
It is consistent with every other article on MCU films. El Millo (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Bad consistency and not consistent with the Spider-Man film articles. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
How so? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
As I already explained the other Spider-Man film articles don't do this, they don't hide away all the Navboxes into one single even more unnecessary box. It might be consistent with MCU articles but it is a foolish consistency not in keeping with other Wikipedia principles and guidelines such as MOS:DONTHIDE or the principals of relevance that are widely applied elsewhere (stick to primary genre, don't include every possibly category, etc, etc) but that seems to go out the window with Navboxes which are linkdumpsters, even less helpful than a "See also" section. The indiscriminate inclusion of barely relevant Naboxes instead of picking the most relevant then leads to boxes within boxes within boxes. (The template Marvel Cinematic Universe hides five more sub-boxes).
The fact is Navboxes are automatically excluded for over 50% of readers (mobile users). Even when they are included they are still not actually shown, they are almost always collapsed by default, and they are often hidden under yet another layer of boxes. I really hope this one of those things Wikipedia editors will eventually learn to stop doing (a problem like indiscriminately putting excessive BOLD almost everywhere used to be) but if that happens at all I expect it will take a long time.
TLDR: Navboxes. If you must include them then make an effort to include the ones that are most relevant. If you're going to include them then show them! -- 109.79.172.238 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:NAVBOXES offers no guidance on how navboxes should be displayed only that The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. As such, we have {{Navboxes}} which can group many navboxes together as has been properly done here. In terms of following styling of other articles, this article is an MCU film first, then a Spider-Man franchise film, thus there has been a uniform styling created for the MCU films. And to add, I've seen it generally accepted that if there are 3 (sometimes 4) or more navboxes on an article, they can be collapsed together. Excluding one or more from the group container defeats the purpose of doing that (which we should) and also becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue, since certain navboxes are given preference over others. In this specific example, all the navboxes here are helpful for readers, but exist under the collapsing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Title error...

Must be lowercase > Spider-Man: Far from Home not Spider-Man: Far From Home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:155B (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the move request above, this issue has already been discussed and the consensus was not to move the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Blip

Now that the fourth episode of WandaVision referenced the Blip multiple times, I'm wondering if it's still necessary for "The Blip" to redirect to this article, especially since future MCU works will likely use this term. - Richiekim (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I was part of the discussion that saw "The Blip" change in redirects from Avengers Endgame#Plot to Spider-Man: Far From Home as it was a more direct and specific target since that's when it was termed. In that discussion, it was noted the consensus could change at any time by a WP:BOLD edit, and I feel now is the time to change it. I first thought a redirect to the MCU timeline article would be nice, but that's still heavily in draftspace. The MCU films list wouldn't suffice much considering it's mentioned in WandaVision, so redirecting it to Marvel Cinematic Universe may just be the next best bet for it, though it's not mentioned at that article and so far is only mentioned at FFH and WV. I don't think a redirect to Blip (disambiguation) would be most helpful as this is pretty much an MCU-exclusive term, leaning myself closer to just redirecting it to the MCU article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we even need an article redirect? Can't we just put, where necessary, "...the Blip[efn tag here stating "As seen in Avengers: Endgame (2019)."]..."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I was starting to think the same. As it is an in-universe term, it doesn't really hold much weight. I support removing this redirect as there's really no use for it. If we remove it, we should also remove The Snap, or at least retarget that to the Avengers: Infinity War reception discussing the Snap's social media responses. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the redirect to The Bilp to the MCU article and removed it from the Far From Home article, if it's ok with you guys. - Richiekim (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the redirect should be to the Phase Three article if we're keeping it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. - Richiekim (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Portraying Skrull

Here's the edit that was reverted and I was told to bring it up in Talk instead.



They also said the entry for Nick Fury would have to change too if the one for Maria Hill changed since a Skrull was posing as him too, but he did appear in a scene at the end, so if anything it's Samuel L. Jackson as Talos and as Nick Fury.

  • Samuel L. Jackson as Talos and Nick Fury:

Talos was a Skrull posing as Nick Fury, the former director of S.H.I.E.L.D., who is now in a situation where he does not have the level of control he is used to having. Nick Fury appeared in a post-credit scene on a spaceship.

Djm11230 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think this is necessary since it is a surprise twist and a bit of a joke. For all intents and purposes this is not the case in a real world sense. It would be different if we knew all along that the Skrulls were posing as Hill and Fury and them trying to blend in was part of the plot. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is comparable to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, where Brendan Gleeson's Mad-Eye Moody is actually David Tennant's Barty Crouch Jr masquerading as him using the Polyjuice Potion. Both our Wikipedia article and the official credits for that film list Gleeson only as Moody, not as Crouch. The credits for Far From Home only credit Jackson as Nick Fury and Smulders as Hill, not as the Skrulls masquerading as them. Granted, this is revealed after the full credits, but that is a testament to the little relevance this has within the context of the whole film. —El Millo (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. If anything, I actually would say the listings should remain as is, and after the current descriptions, we add about the Skrull impersonations. But I feel this was discussed previously and the consensus was not to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing "third film" to Spider-Man: Phone Home

I would like for the sentance "A third film is set to be released on December 17th 2021" to "Spider-Man: Phone Home is set to be released on December 17th 2021". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.172.25 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NOPE! Those weren't actual titles. The cast were just trolling as a marketing strategy. That's why the three of them gave us 3 different titles "Phone Home", "Home-Wrecker" and "Home-Slice". — Starforce13 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Starforce13 Yep, Those Were not Actual Titles, The Official Title can only come from the studio or The Director Jon Watt's Himself. Chip3004 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It is Spider-Man: No Way Home per official announcement from Marvel today. Spanneraol (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

change ", and Paul Bettany as Stark" to ", and Paul Bettany" Paul Bettany plays Vision, not Tony Stark StephenSabbatical (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This is not an error. The sentence says Images from previous MCU films of Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and Paul Bettany as Stark, Steve Rogers / Captain America, Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow, and Vision, respectively ... (bolding my own), it's not saying that Bettany plays Stark. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021

Nick Fury was actually Talos in the movie so shouldn't SLJ be credited Talos not Nick Fury. 207.148.176.95 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the #Portraying Skrull section above where this issue was already discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Lendeborg Jr.

The actor reprises his Spider-Man: Homecoming role as Jason Ionello at the beggining of the film. Why is he not in the article? AxGRvS (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

He is now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

First openly trans actor?

Zach Barack is the first openly trans actor in the MCU films but Jessica Jones had at least a couple trans actors. Considering that show is canon, should we edit that passage?Aresef (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have adjusted it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Bulletpoint for Tony Revolori?

For Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: No Way Home, the full end credits billing was used for the cast list, but for this film, only those listed on the official poster were used. This only effects Tony Revolori, who appeared in the credits sequence of all three films, but was never listed on the poster. So he received a bullet point entry for films one and three, but not for film two. For continuity sake, shouldn’t he receive his bullet point for this film? Nickh105 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Cast edit request on 10 January 2022

Even Jon Watts abandoned a plan to let Dimitri become villain, I think we should hyperlink "Dimitri" to the article "Chameleon". Raiden (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what you are suggesting or what sources you are referring to. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Far from Home?

When adding the movie to peoples filmography should it be Far From Home just like the article or should it follow the MOS Wikipedia approach?Hydro-Molecular Dude (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The film's title is Spider-Man: Far From Home. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
So if it has Far from Home in one of the articles we should correct it to the right title?Hydro-Molecular Dude (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home/Archive_3&oldid=1199044987"