Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Post-credits scenes

There is always a discussion after a film about whether the post-credits scenes are notable enough to the film's plot to be included in the plot summary. In this case, I don't feel that either should be mentioned. The mid-credits scene is potentially setting up a future villain, but in the film it just plays as a small character beat for Toomes after the credits that could maybe be mentioned in his character section, rather than an actual plot point. And the second one is definitely not important to the plot. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is still important. There are other instances where the post-credit scenes are not important, but are still worth noting.

I think the mid-credits scene can be mentioned, but I'm fine with the post-credit one not being mentioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Every MCU movie has a summary of the post-credits scene. No every pcs has something relevant to do with the plot. The Avengers eating Shawarama? That's not essential to the movie at all but it's added because it occurred in the film.Xtremeroller (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot summaries should "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail" (from WP:FILMPLOT). The post-credits scene of this film is just a joke, it does not add anything to the plot. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, like I said so was The Avengers' and even the 1st Guardians. The collector sitting in his collection while Howard the Duck just says a one-liner. These scenes are jokes but are added to the plot of the movies. Please explain to me why that is and this time is different. Xtremeroller (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. If you take issue with those other articles, then they should be discussed at their talk pages. Here, we are discussing this film's post-credits scene, which I have noted has literally nothing to do with the film's plot, and another editor has agreed with its exclusion. Can you give a good reason for why this specific scene needs to be mentioned in the plot (i.e. how it does not come under "minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail")? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It is an acceptable argument because it's part of the same franchise of those films. And like I've said in my examples, those post-credits have nothing to do with their plots as well. Change of conversation: look up the word "balance". The word is perfectly used in the sentence, Peter is trying to balance his life in high school while being Spider-Man as he faces the Vulture. Nothing wrong with my version of the summary. Xtremeroller (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Balance is between things, in this case his high school life and being Spider-Man. Your wording removes the comparison between those two things, and instead says "balance his life in high school (with some unknown thing that I am not going to tell you about) while being..." Clearly we do not want to be saying that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The post credits scenes have become a tradition for the MCU and not mentioning them does not provide information whether there is a post credits scene or not. by not adding the post credits scene, we are not giving full information about what happens in the movie. also while it doesnt add anything to the story, similar conditions have come forth in previous MCU film plots, where the post credits scene is mentioned no matter what the context. Can you please give a good reason why the post credits scenes in The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor: The Dark World, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Iron Man 3 should exist?

Also, if the reason for the post credits scene not being mentioned is taken into consideration, almost every single post credit scene (outside the MCU) mentioned on wikipedia should not exist, as the post credit scenes of almost all other movies are not important to their respective plots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeanidiot (talk • contribs) 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this discussion too late. I saw the movie today, and was stunned by the post credits scene. While we don't have to mention it in the plot, can we mention in the production section that it was inspired by the scene in Ferris Bueller (which in turn inspired Deadpool's)? Use this source. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added it in, but only that it is similar to the Ferris Bueller scene, not inspired by, because the author of the article is making the connection, not getting the info from Watts or Feige that that was indeed what inspired its inclusion. I know the Ferris Bueller scene has inspired the MCU post credit scenes in general, but with only this source, a bit of a stretch to say it also was for this one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should have that line. Saying that scene is similar to the Ferris Bueller scene is a very big stretch, and one that is being made by someone unrelated from the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adam, since saying "the film is similar to that" without mentioning according to who, looks like OR. Besides, I remember seeing the name "Ferris Bueller" in the credits of this film, and I first thought that was indication that the post-credits scene (PCS) was based on that film's one. Might have been, but now I realise they actually used a clip from that film in Homecoming, for which they could not possibly leave Ferris Bueller unacknowledged in the credits. But I'll leave it there, since there's no primary source saying Homecoming's PCS was based on that in Ferris Bueller. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not incredibly familiar with Wikipedia and how strict form is over content, but I know that Wikipedia is one of, if not the top site that people check to see if Marvel movies (and other movies I suppose) have mid-credit and post-credit scenes. It just seems a shame that the scene that is purposefully placed at the very end of the movie, which is popular and iconic within this media franchise, is going to be left out completely. I'd additionally argue that examining each individual sentence in movie plot sections would result in noticeably different plots for virtually all movies on Wikipedia, and is subjective as well, as we wouldn't be discussing this if it weren't. Also, it doesn't seem like a congruous encyclopedia to have such scenes added in every single Marvel movie (if they exist) and ignored in this one, simply to be dismissed with "take it up with those other movie talk pages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C501:7E69:F1EC:E81E:56F3:959 (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the post credit scene it not giving you hint on the next best avengers movie. But can we say that the post credit scene is hinting that fans can't wait for infinty war . I mean that is what the post credit is meant to be for anyway. Underdog0123 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The post-credit scene indicates nothing helpful for the next Avengers film. It also does not indicate "that fans can't wait for infinty [sic] war." We cannot read people's minds. Post-credit scenes are meant so much more than that. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 05:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

just because post credit scenes are meant for "so much more than that" doesnt mean they shouldnt be shown. Go to the wikipedia page for post credits scenes and check every movie plot that it shows as examples, you will see that the post credits scenes are shown no matter what the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeanidiot (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The post credits scenes have become a tradition for the MCU and not mentioning them does not provide information whether there is a post credits scene or not. by not adding the post credits scene, we are not giving full information about what happens in the movie. also while it doesnt add anything to the story, similar conditions have come forth in previous MCU film plots, where the post credits scene is mentioned no matter what the context. Can you please give a good reason why the post credits scenes in The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor: The Dark World, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Iron Man 3 should exist?

Also, if the reason for the post credits scene not being mentioned is taken into consideration, almost every single post credit scene (outside the MCU) mentioned on wikipedia should not exist, as the post credit scenes of almost all other movies are not important to their respective plots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeanidiot (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What difference will it make for you whether it is included or not? People are supposed to use this page to have a better understanding of the film. The post-credits scene has nothing to do with the plot, but the fact that it is a hidden scene at the end of the movie, makes it all the more important to be included in the plot. Plus, one line won't hurt as long as it is not our point or incorrect in terms of the plot line. WikiTeen1000 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Please read the thread.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've read the thread. Post-credits scenes are included in all Marvel movie pages, regardless of importance (see: shawarma). And if you actually read the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS page, it says that said argument can be valid or invalid, so using it is neither a blanket defense nor a pointless endeavor. In this case, it's warranted.

From what I can gather of people who have spoken up on here, it's around an even 5-5 vote. I could be counting/reading wrong, but that's what I'm seeing, and you can throw me as the 6th in the "leave it up" camp. I'd recommend holding an actual poll, or providing a better argument than "just because other pages do it this one doesn't have to do it". Consistency may be seen as a flimsy excuse, but it exists for a reason. Buh6173 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is not formed by voting. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Then how is consensus formed? From what I've read, you seem to be the main person championing leaving the info off the page, so I'd like to hear your recommendation of a method of resolving this outside of "it's not important enough", which about half the people here seem to disagree with you on. Buh6173 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No, he is not the only one. If you haven't read the entire discussion, don't make assumptions. The post-credit scene with Captain America has no relation to the film. It was only a scene to make the audience laugh. It offers no new information about future films. Had it been a scene about the world finding out who Spider-Man was, then yes it should be included. However, things like Captain America taping for the PSA video is really not notable and unnecessary to include. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." Also, I've read the thread; I didn't say adamstom97 is the only person in favor of omitting the material, but that they were the main person in favor of it, and they seem to have the most number of posts (in addition to you). And seeing how all the other Marvel films list their post-credits scenes, relevant or not, I would say that it's warranted here for consistency sake. Buh6173 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That scene is not important to the plot. Things that aren't important to the plot can be mentioned elsewhere, like Production or Casting. DonQuixote (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that there is already good coverage of this scene along with the other Cap PSAs in the Post-production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the Jennifer's Body talk page of the article Jennifer's Body and look under the "violation of good article terms and policies" section, I made a statement that a kiss scene mentioned in the plot was not necessary. Wikipedia user Flyer22 Reborn himself said that it it made more sense to include it in the Plot section of the article so that readers would know what they were talking about when reading the sections that mentioned it. In the same way, readers of this article should know what the post production is mentioning about the plot when they read it.

also, as I said before (on my callmeanidiot account), not mentioning the scene does not provide complete information of the film's plot, and confuses people whether there is one or not, considering that almost every other film in this universe has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just add it. You are lengthening the argument for nothing. Majority want the scene included and it makes more sense to have it that way. Stop acting so indenial. You're the only one opposing to have the scene excluded. WikiTeen1000 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

One blocked user is not a majority. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. We are not "acting indenial [sic]". Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

that "one blocked user" still counts as a user and that doesn't decline the odds against you.also no one responded to my argument, ignoring it. being responsible wikipedians, if you are, you would comment against it.you just want what is in your mind to go the way it is.seven other movies in the same universe so far had post credits scenes that were jokes.the avengers shawarma scene, the iron man 3 therapy scene are two of them. nobody is after those, yet for some reason everyone disagrees with the post credits scene for THIS particular movie. the odds demand the opposite of what you want so please think this over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

See also bits

I've remobed for the second time the two bits under the See also section as they appear so tangential to the story so as to be trivial. Since both items were trivial, it removed the immediate need for a See also section. I am not suggesting that a See also won't come into play at a later point, but an empty section has no value to a Good Article.
As an aside, when you're revert is undone, its time to go to the talk page, not continue the revert pattern. Doing so implies a grand level of stupidity on the part of the reverter, and the failure to initiate discission compounds the problem and sheds the assumption of good faith. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it such a big deal for you to prevent readers from exploring either drones or powered exoskeletons beyond the film's Spider-Drone and Iron Man appearances? These elements appear in various films to varying degrees. The Spider-Drone, for example, is noteworthy enough that apparently they made a drone toy out of it. And Iron Man's appearance in the film isn't trivial. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it such a big deal, you ask? Because its you (or some other editor) deciding that, while looking at this film, that the really, super-dooper important part of the film is the drones and powered exoskeleton. It is important to remember that our opinions are worthless when weighed against notalbe, reliable sources. As for tangentially-related material, why not other Spider-Man films? Why not the Washington Monument? Why not the first Avengers film, from which the main plot arises? See, those seem, imo, to have far more relatable value to the artice.

It also bears noting that SEEALSO notes that includion requires editorial judgment and common sense (which, unsurprisingly, is fairly uncommon). As an editor, I found the infor too trivial to include in a See Also section. Perhaps if you were able to create a fully-cited subsection about the advances in the Spider-Suit, there would be more of a reason to include links to drones and exoskeletons. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither element is "really, super-dooper important". That is the entire point of the "See also" section, to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. As for the other Spider-Man films, that is covered by the navigation template at the end. As for the Washington Monument, it is already linked to in the article body. Do both of these points make sense to you as to why they are not included in the "See also" section? And do you want to put either list link in the article body? I find list links are awkward to put into prose. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that the bits about drones and spider-suits are crufty in the extreme, and not really relevant. If you think that seeking a common understanding of what belongs in the wiki article's See also section a "weaponizing" of a basic process, then perhaps you might need to take a break and have some tea. Assume Good Faith, or you might find less of it extended to yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(did not see the above) Jack Sebastian persists in removing the "See also" section that contains links to List of films featuring drones and List of films featuring powered exoskeletons. Per WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Both links seen here enable readers to do that exploring. Both lists have films that range in scope of featuring either element. Jack falsely claims that the films have to be "about" either element (in other words, "directly related") to qualify for inclusion, which is a POV criterion stricter than what WP:SEEALSO entails. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe you might want to extend a bit more AGF, Erik; esp. if you'd like to receive it in return. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, any input? There's no good in-between compromise to be had here, it seems. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the movie yet, so I can't judge if "featuring" is accurate. My gut says to leave them out. *strolls over to the list of exoskeletons to add Dark Knight Returns...* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

For me, the litmus for inclusion is an agreement by editors that it warrants inclusion. To my mind, its so very little of the actual story. Does it belong in Iron Man? Probably. Dark Knight? Maybe. Spider-Man? Not so much. But that's my opinion, backed up by the utter lack of source material in the article talking about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And lastly, it would appear that Erik missed/ignored my suggestion: "Perhaps if you were able to create a fully-cited subsection about the advances in the Spider-Suit, there would be more of a reason to include links to drones and exoskeletons.". Why else suggest that there is "no good in-between compromise to be had"? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack, if an article talks about a linked topic, then there would be no need for it to be in the "See also" section. In addition, these are list links, which are not straightforward to insert in prose. WP:SEEALSO says, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." We know that the film shows a drone and also shows a powered exoskeleton. My concern is that the suggested criteria is one's personal thinking of where an element becomes "too" indirect or tangential. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I utterly reject your reasoning that See Also sections are - in essence - 'shit that doesn't fit anywhere else'. For example, if the article talked about the drone-y exoskeleton-y aspects of the film, or touched on the subject, the reader might be inclined to follow their bliss to explore the subject elsewhere. Since there isn't any RS talking about it, you are opining about the usefulness of the info without the requisite support for that belief.

Lastly, your concern about personal thinking (ie. opinion) of material's value influencing the See also section is one we both share. This is why SEEALSO notes that editorial discretion and common sense should serve as a guide. To my reckoning, the mere presence of an item in a movie isn't relevant enough for inclusion. A subject touched upon (but not unduly focused upon) serves as a good launching point for a See also mention. My problem is that there appears to be no apparent support for this inclusion beyond editorial wishlisting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You said that there "isn't any RS talking about it". Do you mean in the article body? If that was the case, then the link would go there. That is why I keep highlighting "indirect" and "tangential". You're saying that links to explore about drones and powered exoskeletons are not directly related to the film and are tangential to it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

To follow up on your suggestion, list links are awkward to insert in prose. Are you saying that should be attempted regardless? Even so, this request for article content incorrectly insinuates that a link must be directly and not tangentially related to the topic, which again overlooks the general purpose of "See also" sections. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, "featuring" is used here in the broadest sense, as with similar lists, instead of "about" because the role of an element in a film can vary in importance. A list will show a variety of films with the elements of varying importance. I don't really think there is a better word for such lists, but as I mentioned to Jack elsewhere, they are tangentially related and can give readers an opportunity to explore. Not to mention that they are at the end of the article, so they are not placed prominently anywhere in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And that is the crux of the problem, imo. There's this movie, and then suddenly - >bang! dronez! exo-skellingtonz! There isn't even a touching on the subject via production or critical reception or anything. The point is that See Also sections - while being a diving board for exploring other material - should probably have a pool of information driving that exploration. To not even have that seems OR-driven and bound to cause problems later on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's actually why I added brief annotations per WP:SEEALSO: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I should probably do that more. Essentially, WP:SEEALSO endorses providing such annotations to address that so-called "sudden" appearance of links. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• KEEP - the "See Also" section. Both articles that were listed are related to items that have direct involvement in the plot of the film. This is basically what a "see also" section is for, to direct readers to articles with related, relevant content. This content is useful, and it is never beneficial to remove useful content. - ^theWOLFchild 20:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Thewolfchild, we aren't quite to the point where we are voting yet. This is simply discussion. And, to respond to your argument, I'd like to ask what sources you have that support your argument that the see also bits are useful. I am not seeing their massive usefulness to the plot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Jack Sebastian, if you understood any of the guidelines here, you'd realize I am not "voting". We don't "vote", we contribute comments to build consensus. That is what I have done. And I don't need to provide "sources" to support my opinion... it's just that, an opinion. AFAIC, the "See Also" section is useful and should be retained. What I don't get is, why you are so bent out of shape about this that you are willing to edit war, file frivolous 3RR reports, make baseless accusations of canvassing, and generally fill up page after page with your argumentative nonsense. We get it... you don't want the section there. You've made you're point, now chill out and let the process run it's course. - ^theWOLFchild 21:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Thewolfchild, maybe you are going to find me more receptive of your viewpoint if you didn't couch it in personal attacks. I've been nice, and I expect the smae from you. I didn't point out that you starting off your comment with "KEEP" is exactly what a !vote looks like to everyone else. I haven't discussed any of Erik's problematic behavior here - because this is is article discussion, not user discussion. If you have a burning need to take issue with my concerns over Erik's behavior in this matter (and this matter alone), you are experienced enough to know how to address those concerns. Hint: that place is not here.

Stay on target while here: address the edits, not the editor - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Jack Sebastian, I don't expect you become "receptive to my viewpoint", since you have sooo emphatically (and exhaustively) railed on with your opposing view point. And I didn't realize your snotty, arrogant and condescending retort was you "being nice" to me. I also didn't realize that pointing out "facts" was considered a "personal attack". I did notice how you used your whining and complaining about me commenting about your behaviour as an opportunity to slip in a crack about "Erik's problematic behavior". If this isn't the place to discuss such things, then why are you doing just that? (Hint: don't complain about the actions of others while you're doing the same thing). Now, if you try really hard, do you think you can focus on the discussion at hand, and not on how others are contributing to it? Give it a shot, mmkay? - ^theWOLFchild 21:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, anytime you want to sut the snarky bits out of your post, it would be appreciated. I always know when someone attacks me and not my points that I am done discussing with that person, as they don't actually have a point. So, if your next comment is yet another attack on my, I'll simply ignore you. Last warning: focus on edits, and not the editor. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you should look at your own comments and follow your own advice. My first post was about the issue, and the issue only. Then you came at me. While I may comment on the issue again if necessary, I don't have anything more to say to you. I you have anymore of your "I'm-not-attacking-you-with-these-attack-comments" or yet another "must-have-the-last-word" posts, then have at it, but I'm not interested. I'm done here. - ^theWOLFchild 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody "came at you, bro". I pointed out that it was a discussion, not a vote. Clearly, you didn't know the difference, and I should have taken that possibility into account. I didn't attack you; I don't even know you. Stop making it personal and calm the hell down. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There isn't "massive usefulness" involved. If there was, it would fit in the article body. For example, it is easy to link to Washington Monument in the article body (and would never been allowed in the "See also" section for that reason). But if someone created "Washington Monument in film" or "List of films featuring the Washington Monument", neither fit well in the article body and can thus go into a "See also" section. Why not let readers choose to explore? The links aren't detrimental. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow to crystallize the issue, Erik: you keep adding it because you think its important, the operative phrasing here being "you think". Your entire argument is that we add it so people can explore the subjects elsewhere; the problem with that argument is that there isn't a single thing in the article from a reputable source tapping into or driving that interest. So you just adding it in because "you think" it has importance is the crux of the problem. If it were important at all, there would be several sources dedicated to discussing these elements, and yet none appear int he article. So See also sections require references within the article? Not always, but having referenced mentions in the article support the value of adding it to the See also for reader exploration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement that there has to be something in the article from a reputable source tapping into or driving that interest. WP:SEEALSO says, "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I belatedly added brief annotations. Again, if multiple sources discussed the elements, then such links would be included in the article body (however awkwardly). I think readers should be given the opportunity to explore these elements, where you don't. Not everyone has to click on every link. What is wrong with giving them the choice to get into a tangentially related topic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section..."

You keep missing the mark, Erik. You think readers should be given info links based upon your personal perception. That isn't good enough, sir. See also sections suvive the test of time by noting information which isn't a large leap from the article. Were there drones? yep. Were there powered exoskeletons? If you stretch the definition, then maybe. Were there also fancy cars, backwards-engineered technology and other stuff? yep. Do you know what drives inclusion in See also? A reasonable belief that people are going to be interested in what you want to add. You've shown one article (an article that wasn't in the article when this discussion started, or when the see also was removed, almost three weeks ago); that is a good start, but it isn't enough. My editorial judgment, equal to yours and everyone else's, suggests that you need some basis within the article for inclusion. Otherwise, its OR wishlisting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of the spider-drone being discussed. Let's say we found a place for it in the article body. Maybe we could put that list link in adjacent to that passage. But I'm saying that it is awkward to do so essentially because the presentation of it would be tangential to writing whatever prose. Hence why I still advocate for the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's just lazy, Erik. I have suggested no less than three times that if you think there isn't enough in the production or critical reception sections about the suit, then create a subsection and find cited statements to populate it. That there aren't enough of them to accomplish this suggests - to me, at the very least - that this information is of trivial value and little interest.

That said, I am not here on an all-or-nothing search and exclude mission. See also sections are rife with unsupportable forks that have importance pretty much in the mind of the editor adding them, and nowhere else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack, the list itself lists the film with a reference. And how else should a list link be shared anywhere on Wikipedia? Running prose does not allow for easy inclusion. Do you really want to say something like, "They created a Spider-Drone for the film (see also: list of films featuring drones)"? Also, the "See also" section has been there for 251 days for at least one link. That was my perspective as to why the onus was on you to start the discussion. I did not find the removal to be doing readers a favor, especially with the false claim that such links have to be directly "about" something. I still do not understand why the emphasis is still on writing article content just for links that don't fit easily. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Respectfully, Erik, it is not my immediate task to find a way to solve the problem, beyond what I've suggested to your (now) four times. How you choose to construct it is your choice. I am simply saying that, without any real support from sources, we have to surmise that the interest on the suggested subject is low. I am glad that you found at least one source. You are good at that, and if you cannot find more, that should tell you a lot more about about the triviality of the information. If its trivial, readers are less likely to find it a compelling rabbit hole to wander down. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Partial remove I think I'm going to have to agree with Jack here. I see no point in those links and find them redundant. Had it been a topic representing the film, such as superheroes, then I'd keep it. Otherwise, to list an article about films covering drones is a certain remove for me. The second article, I am more inclined to keep because the film does revolve around that more. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  Callmemirela, thanks for weighing in. If you'd allow me to appeal to you (and SarekOfVulcan as well), in addition to "See also" links only needing to be indirectly related to the topic, list links are not easily folded into the article body. As a result, "See also" sections are common places for film-related lists. As for the two elements being discussed here, I ask you to consider that these elements are not ubiquitous. For example, Spider-Man: Homecoming also features a school bus, but these are ubiquitous. Drones and powered exoskeletons are elements that are being highlighted more. Watts and Holland here express excitement about it. It's also mentioned here. There are several articles talking about how the Spider-Drone became a toy, such as this. Film-related lists about common elements will range in scope. Sometimes the element drives the whole movie, and sometimes it makes up a scene or two. If reliable sources highlight it, that makes it more than ubiquitous. I think that is sufficient to enable readers to explore such a tangentially related topic. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  Callmemirela, SarekOfVulcan, do you have a response to what I stated above? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - from what I can tell, this argument comes down to whether the "See also" section should link to things that are not significantly discussed in the rest of the article. While I do think the specific links in the section seem a bit arbitrarily chosen, I disagree with the notion that they should not be there because they are not previously discussed. Erik is correct, if they were previously discussed then there wouldn't be much need for a "See also" section. Similarly, if an article discussed something controversial about its subject, and there was a separate article on the wider controversy that is clearly related but does not fit into the specific discussion, then a link to that could be added to a "See also" section. That is what the sections should be used for. Anyway, I may be a bit off-base, but those are my thoughts on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Producer fee

I think that due too the special deal it could be worth mentioning the producer fee. [1] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about this part in the article: The Sony-Marvel deal was unusual because little money changed hands. Sony paid Marvel an undisclosed producers fee, but Marvel won’t receive any of the profits. (bolding mine)? If so, I wouldn't be opposed, and feel it should go at the end of the first paragraph in the "Development" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly the part that I am on about. I came here to ask because I thought I added it in before, and so I wanted consensus before readding especially now that it is a GA. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Possessive form of the proper name Toomes

@HolyT: Thank you for initiating discussion. I'd like to give, first, my foundation reasoning for the singular s-apostrophe as opposed to s-apostrophe-s, followed by Wikipedia MOS on the topic, and concluding with examples from Good Articles and Feature Articles. I appreciate the opportunity to give a good explanation:

According to standard US English, as exemplified in The AP Stylebook, for << proper names ending in s: Add only an apostrophe: “Kansas’ doctors,” “Achilles’ heel” >> [2].

Another example: << Proper Nouns Ending in S — AP: Add an apostrophe. * Charlaine Harris’ books; * the Joneses’ competition. >> [3]

On to Wikipedia style guidelines. Even with the possessive apostrophe on non-formal names, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Plural and possessive forms uses the example "one DVD's menu was wrong, and five CD-ROMs' titles were misspelled."

Agreeing with this, MOS:PLURALNOUN states: "For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings)."

And at Possessive#From nouns, it says, "In some languages, possessives are formed from nouns or noun phrases. In English, this is done using the ending -'s, as in Jane's, heaven's, the boy's, those men's, or sometimes just an apostrophe, as in workers', Jesus', the soldiers'."

We adhere to this at The Rolling Stones (Good Article); Mormons (Good Article); The Beatles (Featured Article); Stella power stations (Good Article) The Living Daylights (Good Article); Friends (Good Article); and to other including such high-profile entities as Sears, Marvel Comics and even Vulture (Marvel Comics). I hope you use these links and do a find function for "s'", and I'm sure you'll confirm these examples that adhere to common usage and Wikipedia MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Thanks for replying and discussing. Many of your examples are not examples of the use of the apostrophe alone to form a possessive of a singular noun ending in an /s/ or /z/ sound; instead, many are simply showing the formation of the possessive for a PLURAL noun ending in an /s/ or /z/ sound. That was never the issue. There's pretty much universal agreement that the possessive of sons is sons' and the possessive of Joneses is Joneses'. In the MOS example, DVD's is a possessive of a simple singular noun and CD-ROMs' is the possessive of a plural. Neither of those issues is in dispute anywhere.

In the The Living Daylights article, there are examples of Living Daylights' (which makes your point) and Necros's (which makes my point). The Stella power stations article has numerous examples of plural possessives ending in s' (e.g., houses', stations'), which, again, is not controversial and doesn't bear on our contention. There's also an erroneous possessive "Swing Bridge Videos' Check it Out" which should be "Swing Bridge Video's Check it Out" because the possessor is Swing Bridge Video (singular), not Swing Bridge Videos.

MOS:PLURALNOUN refers to plural nouns, not singular nouns ending in an /s/ or /z/ sound. In Friends, there is inconsistent usage. There are examples of Friends' (possessive of a singular, the series title) and Ross's and Ross'. In fact, one episode title contains "Ross's"! There are many instances of series', but I don't think that cuts strongly in your favor, because series is a bit of an anomaly (like aircraft and United States), in that it sometimes is vague as to whether it is singular or plural and often interchanges singular and plural grammatical forms around it.

In your list "Jane's, heaven's, the boy's, those men's, or sometimes just an apostrophe, as in workers', Jesus', the soldiers'," almost all are irrelevant to our discussion. Jane's, heaven's, the boy's (assuming that boy was intended, and not boys) are all simple singular nouns turned into possessives. "Those men's" is an undisputed case of an irregular plural NOT ending in an /s/ or /z/ sound, which takes an 's just like a singular. "Workers'" and "soldiers'" are simple regular plurals ending in /s/ or /z/ sounds, thus taking merely an apostrophe to form the possessive; this is not in dispute anywhere. "Jesus'" is a special case, in that many style guides, even those which prefer 's for singulars ending in /s/ or /z/ sounds, allow it because of widespread usage, probably because of the massive printing and circulation of Bibles that chose that form, not necessarily because it was a better typographical choice to begin with. (Personally, I still use Jesus's, and don't see a logical reason to deviate from the 's standard; some style commenters and guides will say the same thing and not present it as an exception.)

Mormons doesn't have a single example of a singular possessive at all, and only 4 examples of plural possessives, constructed with a final s', all in the references. So nothing there bears on our contention at all.

The Beatles and The Rolling Stones articles don't make your point, because even though they are group (band) names, which are often treated as singular in U.S. English, they double as plurals denoting the members of the group. A quick glance at the articles shows that both those band names are used as plurals throughout. Thus, the possessive would be formed simply by adding an apostrophe, as in workers' and sons'. Again, this doesn't bear on our discussion.

I have to go now but will continue later. Holy (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking seriously and actually going in and reading the examples; I applaud that thoroughness and quest for accuracy.

First, re: << In your list "Jane's, heaven's, the boy's, those men's, or sometimes just an apostrophe, as in workers', Jesus', the soldiers' >>, yes, obviously I know the first four examples were singular or collective nouns. I simply used the entire passage for clarity rather than beginning "or sometimes just an apostrophe" in order that the reader understand what "or" was the converse of.

Aside from the proper name "Jesus," there are also the proper-name examples mentioned in conjunction with AP Style Book, as noted and linked above, and the first of which involves possessive rather than plural: <<at Proper Nouns Ending in S — AP: Add an apostrophe. * Charlaine Harris’ books; * the Joneses’ competition >> --Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, adding in common usage, and without doing an exhaustive search, here's an example of the possessive apostrophe in today's New York Times: "Islanders’ Jordan Eberle Adjusts to New York Life" [4]. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Thank you for your civil dialogue and discussion and kind words. Your last example, Islanders', is merely a possessive of a plural form, which is not our contention. Harris' is a good example to make your point. Joneses' is just a normal possessive of a plural form.

See MOS:POSS: "For the possessive of singular nouns ending with just one s (sounded as /s/ or /z/), there are two practices advised by different grammar and style guides: . . ." I won't copy the rest of that section, but you can read that it says that there are two choices: "James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels." One portion says that the written form depends on the pronunciation, but I think this is circular. If you can write it two different ways, in most cases that would lead to two different pronunciations.

At any rate, we are left with our original issue: whether to use Toomes' or Toomes's as the possessive form of the singular last name Toomes. According to MOS:POSS, we may use either, as long as we are consistent within the article. Other style guides favor one or the other, or allow both, or offer various exceptions and cases. I contend that in the case of Toomes, it is clearer and less ambiguous to use Toomes's. I will copy my arguments from your user page (and edit them some):

There is a character named Toomes. Since he's just a made-up character, and not a dictionary word, someone reading the article (and especially someone hearing the article in audio form) would not have any reason to think that his name isn't Toome. The possessive form Toomes' does not distinguish itself from the possessive Toome's for a character named Toome. It also doesn't distinguish from the simple plural Toomes (many people named Toome) or the simple singular proper noun Toomes (though in some sentences, context distinguishes). Thus, the 's adds clarity. The form Toomes's clearly shows that the noun is Toomes. Another possible confusion (depending on the sentence) is that a reader may think there are multiple characters named Toome (perhaps the members of the Toome family) and the possessive form Toomes' denotes something belonging to multiple people named Toome. Again, the traditional form Toomes's eliminates the confusion. Holy (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

... someone reading the article (and especially someone hearing the article in audio form) would not have any reason to think that his name isn't Toome. This doesn't seem likely considering the fact that the name is mentioned several times right before the possessive is used. There appears to be plenty of context to prevent confusion. - DinoSlider (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Addressing only the issue of possible confusion, given the flexibility of MOS:POSS that Holy was good enough to research, I'd have to agree with DinoSlider. The name is given as "Toomes" at the outset, both in the plot and again in the cast list; in a sentence where the possessive is in context, I don't believe the ordinary reader would think " Toomes' " means the name has changed to "Toome". I don't think there is any confusion over that, honestly.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The reality of this debate is that in American English, there are 'rules' which can be broken and even conflicting rules. In some cases an apostrophe after an 's' is okay, while others and apostrophe then an 's' is permissible. The issue arises when a clearer form is a better choice as it adds clarity. I would argue that for this discussion Toomes, should be formatted as Toomes's in this article. The confusing part is that an apostrophe regularly after an 's', usually means that its possessive to multiple of the singular form (i.e.: "the boxes' lids were all smashed"). For the sake of less confusion and to avoid edit warring, why not use the clearest form of the possessive and use the form suggested? Besides that the sentences could be rephrased to avoid the apostrophe format altogether with: "the daughter of Toomes", and "the business that was owned by Toomes" instead of "Toomes's daughter" or "Toomes's business" respectively.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of post credits scene

I think that the post credits scene should be added to the plot. I had seen the plot and there was no description of the post credits scene. So I skipped the scene while watching the movie recently. I later found out about the scene and had missed it due to this article, so I decided to put it up. I noticed the next day that it was removed. when I read the note, it said to voice my opinion in the talk, but the page wasn't here. I didn't want to create any inconvenience by putting it up again, so I have started this section to voice my opinion. I think not mentioning the post credits scene is misleading and does not tell others who visit the page about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in depth at Talk:Spider-Man:_Homecoming/Archive_2#Post-credits scenes. There really isn't a need to rehash it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of this thread, and also, i have a few doubts.There was not any firm conclusion of the debate before the thread was removed. I think a proper statement should have been proposed at least once before reaching a conclusion. I also noticed that some questions were left unanswered. Why is this so? shouldn't all questions and doubts be clarified before closing a topic? i agree with the statement on the thread by WikiTeen1000.

Majority want the scene included and it makes more sense to have it that way.

I counted the number of people supporting the topic and the number against it. There were about 4 people defending and 5 people against. You can count me as the sixth person. It really seems to me that an omition of the post credits scene can mislead people who visit the page into not seeing the post credits scene, and most people would not have the time or thought of checking the post production section for the scenes. two other movies from the MCU had negligible or no post credits scenes. not mentioning the post credits scene for this movie would confuse people into thinking the same for this one. And also considering it is a GA now, I think it must note down all information about the movie, rather than omitting some information just because it was not important to the plot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 March 2018‎

Consensus doesn't work that way. We don't do vote counts. There needs to be a consensus to change a stable article, particularly when it's a GA, and consensus for change was divided in the discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine if consensus is not obtained through votes, but just think, people come to wikipedia mostly for a reason, and the reason for which people visit the MCU articles of wikipedia is to check whether the post credits scene exists or not. and I read the thread and i know that it is mentioned in the post production, but all people wouldn't know during what time of production the post credits scene was made and nobody would think of checking that section. what most people would do is glance the plot, check for the post credits scene and conclude if there exists a post credits scene or not. and most people, on seeing this article, would conclude that there isn't a post credits scene, which has happened before, or is negligible as was in the first captain america movie. joke or not, the information about the scene should be included to not mislead people. if possible i would ask you to just add "there is a post credits scene" but considering that is very informal especially because the article is a GA now,(and because the reason the plot section exists is to provide information about the movie), its best to include all the information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what an encyclopaedia is for -- that's what IMDb is for. DonQuixote (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

i clearly stated "I WOULD have". i didn't say DO it, and IMDb does not detail the plot, there is a difference. As i said, not mentioning the post credits scene would be misleading as it would cause people to think that the movie doesn't have a post credits scene, which has happened before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

not mentioning the post credits scene would be misleading as it would cause people to think that the movie doesn't have a post credits scene That's what discussing it the "Production" section is for, when the scene has no merit to the overall plot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, most of the people who would visit this page would come just to quickly check if it exists or doesn't, and most people don't even think about the post production section, they immediately check the plot to find out this information. not the post production, the plot, because as all articles would benefit from, the plot would be the most easily accessible part of the article to determine whether it exists or doesn't. and any further detail which should be mentioned about it will be put in the post production section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, there have been numerous occasions in the MCU movies (which are all GAs), that have allowed post credit scenes that had no merit to the plot. I am not the first to say this, but certainly want to put forward the fact, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS article said it could be either valid or invalid, and considering that the post credits scene is an almost normal part of the series, mentioning the scene in the plot will improve the article by increasing the rough details about the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think there are articles with irrelevant post-credit scenes listed, then that should be discussed at their talk pages, not here. And we do not write Wikipedia articles assuming people don't actually want to read them. I don't even know how we could. The article needs to be the best it can be for people who actually want to read it, and then whether they do or not is up to them. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that those pages should be discussed, I am saying they are better left not discussed as they provide complete information about the plot. the plot section of this article will be the best it can be if it provides information about as much of the movie as possible, by not going into to much detail, and providing information about the movie having a post credits scene will merit it by providing more information about the movie. That is what the plot section is for. and, again quoting one of the people from the thread, what harm will come to the article by the addition of just one line? someone said that the reason was stated but I did not see anything of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT, The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail. The post-credits scene we are discussing is a brief joke, not an event that happens in the film's plot. If it happened in the middle of the film, it would not be included, and being after the credits shouldn't change how we treat a scene. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying change the way you treat the scene, what I am saying is make people aware of the scene in the plot section so that it is more easily accessible. the more accessible an article is, the better the article becomes. So far almost every article about an MCU movie having a post credits scene has mentioned the scene no matter what the context and thus provided information about the scene EXISTING in the movie. If I was just going to see the movie today, I would just come to this article, check the plot, see no mention of the post credits scene and skip it. I am sure I am not the only one doing this in the world, and this was already mentioned in the previous thread. this is the kind of confusion it can create. I just want to avoid the confusion for others. as I said, I would have asked to just mention "there is a post credits scene" but that is not possible. And also, I know it is mentioned in the post production, but that wouldn't deter the fact that I, and many others, would have missed the scene. The biggest fans of marvel, Like you and me, would wait through the credits to see the scene, and many would check WIKIPEDIA to be sure it exists. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drambowski4913 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 March 2018

Sorry for joining in late to the discussion, but I had no idea the post credits scene was taken down. it was up for a week and then got taken down, and seeing drambowski's arguments, I don't see why the post credits scene for this movie was taken down, when all other marvel movies provide information, as said by drambowski, about the post credits scene. Agreed that it is just a joke but that does not mean the scene should be discarded from the plot just because it is a joke or because it was mentioned in the post-production section. I agree with him when he says removing the scene makes it inconvenient for readers of this article. Also, the other marvel movies, which I checked are all Good Articles have the post credits scenes whether they are a joke or not. It doesn't make a difference in those articles, so why does it make a difference here? For me its not about the scene being a joke, but about being convenient for readers who read the article

Cast listing

What in the world is with the order of the cast for this movie? First of all the bottom paragraphs (emphasis on the multiple 's') are very detailed and long. Besides that, we have very minor characters being listed in bullet-form, while characters like Need Leeds, Liz Allen, and Flash Thompson are all listed in the paragraphs. Shouldn't this list reflect the main actors of the film in the bullets, while characters who are barely in the film (Tyne Daly's character for example) be listed at the bottom? Regardless it is messy in its current form. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bulleted cast are per the film's billing block to remain unbiased in the listing. After that, we have the remaining cast, who wouldn't fit in one paragraph because we have some additional info for Ned, Liz and Flash. It isn't really messy at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ned is like the third or fourth most important character in the film, but he's just in the paragraph? Liz Allen is Peter's love interest but Zendaya gets a bullet point instead??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewalkingfred (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Would like to add my incredulity that a "good" article can be so uninforming. I can understand why the cast is listed as such but there's even a Verge article about how badly the film's poster was designed. The entire twist of the film revolves around the villain being the dad of the love-interest. Liz Toomes is arguably the fourth most important character of the film and I had to look up the actress on some marvel wiki because her character isn't referenced until the third paragraph of the plot section and even then, only as a single word. If the Liz character's last name (Toomes/Allan) is in doubt at least put the second name in brackets. Additionally, Liz is not a "classmate", she is a senior and head of the decathlon team, which coincidentally would provide a better point to introduce her, say, "Parker quits his school's academic decathlon team led by his crush, Liz (Toomes/Allan), to spend more time focusing on his crime-fighting activities as Spider-Man." 139.168.210.252 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Like Favre said, the order is based on the poster’s billing block regardless of our own opinion of who we think is important or not.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Eight-year jump

Joe Russo has confirmed this 8-year jump in time was an error. Is it worth mentioning, even though he isn't the director? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Marvel's official stance (per Feige) at the moment is that it was not an error, so I don't think we should make a definitive statement like that, but I wouldn't be against putting together some info to consider adding to the article that covers all of the responses so far. It may even be more appropriate to add it to a larger section on continuity at the main MCU page. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Source says "The interview is all done in good humor", not really sure if that means it should be included. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In Avengers: Infinity War, Tony Stark tells Thanos that it's been six years since the Battle of New York, so it looks like the Homecoming timeline is incorrect. - Richiekim (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

From my memory, he just says that it has been six years since he started having his anxiety issues and it is possible that those did not begin immediately. We also have to remember that Homecoming was not the first film to use this different timeline. All of the Phase One films were supposed to fit together differently than they were released, with all of Phase Two taking place in real time after that. It was actually Civil War that broke the timeline when Vision said that it was 8 years since the end of Iron Man when that really should have been 5 or 6 years. I now feel even more certain that any discussion of the timeline and how there have been different approaches for different films should be kept at the MCU page rather than specific film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adam, that we should probably keep notes on specific timeline info revealed per film to the film's article, and expand on the overall continuity timeline on the MCU or list of films page, discussing how there has been differing opinions on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Tony's anxiety issues, we see it in Iron Man 3, and that's supposed to take place 6 months after The Avengers according to sources, so Infinity War taking place 6 years after New York is still feasible. Still, I agree that timeline issues should be dealt with in the main MCU article for now. - Richiekim (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It definitely is an error. We know Iron Man took place in 2008 from dialogue. In Civil War, there's a line which Vision says "The number of empowered people has increased exponentially in the 8 years since Mr Stark revealed himself as Iron Man" or something like that. Homecoming takes place a few months after Civil War which therefore 100% takes place in 2016. So the 8 year jump since 2012 (as it says in Infinity War that it's been 6 years since New York - equal to real time between the movies) is very clearly an error. Maybe it should be just changed to "many years later" in this article? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Error or not, we should be noting what is stated/shown in the film in the plot info. How we discuss said statement elsewhere in the article (or on another article), is what we are discussing here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Concur with Favre1fan93. I wouldn't be opposed to a footnote in the plot, the way we sometimes do, to the creative team itself making a clarifying statement. But if the movie says eight, then the plot synopsis needs to say eight. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I propose this:

"Eight years later, Peter Parker is drafted into the Avengers by Stark to help with an internal dispute, but resumes his studies at the Midtown School of Science and Technology when Stark tells him he is not yet ready to become a full Avenger."

A simple note that clarifies the error (since it 100% is an error) with a source, but still leaves the "eight years later" in the article based on what was shown in the movie. I do not see any issue with this. It's the best of both worlds. Feel free to vent your issues to me.

The footnote might not work here, but if you look at old versions of the article you will see what I did (it's exactly the same). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All the source that you provided says is that the director of a completely different film believes this to be an error. That is not something we should be adding to this article (especially since the source of Marvel's continuity errors are his films...). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, are you telling me that you don't think this 8-year thing is an error? Why are you arguing for the sake of it? Just add the footnote (not sourced from a "completely differently director" since all MCU movies are collaborative and they all talk to each other). It won't hinder the article and just provides clarification. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to get into the nitpicky in-universeness of what is and is not correct, then it needs to be acknowledged that this 8-year thing is only an issue because Civil War broke the timeline first, and the Russo brothers have only broken the timeline further with Infinity War, which is what this comment from Joe Russo is about: in their opinion, the 8-year later thing is a mistake, but we don't just state one person's opinions. That is why I think it is better to have a full discussion of the timeline errors at a neutral page (the main MCU article) rather then add a comment from a different director giving his personal opinion at this article (and the different directors may discuss things with each other, but they are not all making the movies together, otherwise there probably would not be any timeline error at all). - adamstom97 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm disagreeing with you Adam, but why do you think Civil War broke the timeline first? Was it because of Vision's comment about the time since Stark revealed himself as Iron Man? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was not the director of Homecoming who said eight years was an error, but an outside person (albeit one also involved in the MCU). This does indeed complicate matters and I agree this should probably be discussed at the main MCU page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

But Homecoming is the outlier in the MCU anyway. It was distributed by Sony (who also had final creative control). It doesn't fit into the continuity of the MCU. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that given dialog and events within the film, it would clearly be part of the same continuity. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Captain Obvious. I was clearly talking about the "8 years" not fitting continuity. Evidently nothing I say will change anything. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Yeah, I am referring to Vision's comment. My point is that the timeline mess is just not as cut-and-dry as some editors here seem to think, which is why I am strongly against adding one person's opinion to this article just to support one side of the discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I still support this should be talked about not on this article, though I think a small mention (not as a note in the plot, but somewhere in the production section) should occur here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Far From Home article clincher

What are we waiting for that will pull the trigger on the sequel's article creation? I mean, the former Avengers Infinity War Part II has an article, but not a title. Far From Home has a title, but not an article? Is it more cast? I'm stumped--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It will be moved to mainspace when filming starts, per WP:NFF. Should be July. Avengers 4 filmed back-to-back with Infinity War. Reach Out to the Truth 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

Liz Toomes is Peter Parker's love interest in the film. Liz is portrayed by Laura Ruth Harrier (born March 28, 1990)[2] is an American actress and model. Harrier was first recognized for her portrayal of Destiny Evans in the short-lived reboot of the American soap opera One Life to Live in 2013. In 2017, she made her major film debut portraying Liz Toomes[3] in Spider-Man: Homecoming.[4][5][6] 137.112.45.233 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sock (tock talk) 16:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sequel page

Apparently filming has begun on the sequel, so should a page be created now? [[5]] TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no actual proof there that filming has begun. By the way, an article has already been started at Draft:Spider-Man: Far From Home, it just can't be moved to the mainspace until we are sure that filming is actually underway. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Homecoming "Eight Years Later"

I tried to change the Spider-Man: Homecoming page from where it says "Eight years later" to "Four years later", but somebody changed it back. So, I would like to request if I can change it to "four years later" as, chronologically in the MCU timeline, the events of Spider-Man: Homecoming only happen four years after the Battle of New York in The Avengers, and Marvel confirmed that "Eight Years Later" was a typo or error in the editing. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming/Archive 2#Eight-year jump for the previous discussion on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Scorpion easter egg

While Mac Gargan does not assume the name "Scorpion" in the film, is it worth mentioning that he instead has a scorpion tattoo which critics have seen as an easter egg? This source might be helpful. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's really anything to mention per WP:TRIVIA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright I agree. I initially thought it could be mentioned, like how Deadpool did not see Vanessa turn into Copycat, but the film still had references to Copycat's blue appearance in the comics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does "Jackson Brice / Shocker" need to be mentioned in the plot summary?

It's an Easter egg for comic book fans (and those of us who are only "casual" fans who have never heard of him could kinda tell it was meant that way from the one scene where he's named that), but is not really important plot information. It's only mentioned once elsewhere in the article, under the cast heading, where it gives the same information again in a more logical manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you just saying that the "/ Shocker" part should be removed? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we could get away with calling them "Toomes's henchmen" or the like. As an aside, linking a personal name to Shocker (comics) but linking the supervillain name "Shocker" to Montana (comics) is probably a violation of WP:EASTEREGG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be that drastic. Cutting it down to just "Toomes' associates Jackson Brice and Herman Schultz selling weapons" would have worked, but then I remembered from the film and in our summary, that we specifically note Brice's disintegration, and Schultz being told he is the new Shocker. So regardless, we have to introduce Brice as the first Shocker, and I don't think we could do this introduction where we talking about Toomes killing Brice. It works where it is. As for the possible Egg link, I'm going to adjust so the link will go to Montana (comics)#Film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, but if the film itself doesn't think the characters' names are important (I've seen it three times and I don't seem to recall either one being named out loud) then it seems weird for us to be doing so. If the plot summary doesn't cite secondary sources and so is implicitly based on the film itself (and it doesn't need to be that way), then it really shouldn't be going into details that could only be gleaned from a very close analysis of the film, or from knowing the actors' names and faces and connecting them to the character names listed in the credits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Film set in category

The beginning of the film is set after the battle in New York. It then jumps ahead eight years. Wouldn't that mean that the film is set in 2020? Yes, I did see the hidden note after the "Films set in 2017" category. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

When will the protection be removed from this page I'm a registered user but can't edit it

What's the deal 86.0.202.182 (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The page is currently semi-protected until October 2019. Unregistered users or newly registered users cannot edit semi-protected pages. Until then you can submit an edit request.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Cast section needs reworking

Several of what are basically cameos are given their own bullet points (Daly, Glover, and even kinda Zendaya) while Harrier is confined to half-way down the following paragraph; this feels weird to me.

Since I've brought up similar issues on the Avengers film articles where the problem was pretty bad but perhaps not quite like this, I should clarify that I know the bullet points were laid out that way based on the billing, and consequently not changed even after the release of the film, but I will say in advance that that reasoning doesn't really hold up in cases like this. MOS:FILM, at best, presents it as a suggestion, not a recommendation and certainly not a firm rule, and even if it was a firm rule we would probably be looking at an IAR situation here.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That's just the way it happens sometimes. But following the billing order is the most neutral approach since you can have your opinion on what the cast order should be, I could have my opinion, and others can have theirs. It's almost guaranteed even if a new order was discussed, it wouldn't be easy to get consensus, and even so, come a month or some other time in the future, a user could then adjust to their idea for order, or back to the billing order, and then the discussion happens all over again. Sticking to the billing order is something everyone can easily check and can follow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

So ... rather than having a discussion and building a consensus as to what the cast list should look like, as Wikipedia is supposed to work, we just follow the film's marketers' instructions and shut up about it? That seems counterintuitive. At the very least we should not give bullet points to "famous people cameos" about whom nothing can be said but the name of the actor and the name of the character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we should include Balaton, Harrier, and Revolori based on the animated ending credits sequence. Thoughts? YgorD3 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Add jacob batalon too, he was the person with second most screen time! Justagirlwithnojams (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is Tyne Daly given top cast billing? I think she was only in the film for a few minutes max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:A00C:B531:257F:5873:FDA5 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is Jacob Batalon not listed anywhere on this page? He's a major part of this movie, his character is even mentioned several times in the plot, more even than several of the other actors/actresses given top billing. --Krysox (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Batman

I'd like to suggest a small addition to the text after Michael Keaton, which reads "Keaton was not hesitant to portray another comic book character after playing Batman in Tim Burton's 1989 film and its 1992 sequel." I think it would emphasize that point if we added "... and Keaton frequently quoted Batman on set" Source.

Not only was he not hesitant, he was clearly having fun with it. -- 109.79.93.67 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)