Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Foxx's deleted Instagram post

Should we be using this information in the article, even though it is covered by reliable sources? The post was deleted for a reason, either because Marvel told him to take it down for whatever reason, or for something else, so does that make the info reliable for us? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should read too much into it, other than Foxx confirming that he will be in the film as Electro. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm just feeling it's possible something in the post could be inaccurate hence it being deleted. Sure, most likely it was Marvel getting mad at him for making the post and revealing that, but it still seems a bit iffy to rely on that... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well yeah it's not unlikely that some of it was inaccurate, but it still confirms that he is going to be in the film which we already knew. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Kimmel as Kraven?

So, at least an hour ago, Jimmy Kimmel posted this tweet about him being tapped to play Kraven the Hunter in the film. I haven't seen any news outlets covering it and was wondering if we should include it? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's a joke, or indicating he's going to have some sort of Spidey interview/reveal soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I figured such was the case. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Preparation for move to mainspace

FYI, it appears that filming will begin in NYC on 10/16. Just a heads up. - Richiekim (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, that's when we'll plan to move the article then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: According to AM New York, filming in Queens will start on 10/15, a day earlier. - Richiekim (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Richiekim! @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101, and Facu-el Millo: Regarding the move, is everyone feeling good about where we are at with the article before we do it? I think we've all added/copy-edited a lot over the past few days. As well, I can perform the move come the morning of October 15 if no one objects to that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy as long as we are confident with our sources that filming is actually starting. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel very confident in where the article is at now and in the move to mainspace so long the articles are correct. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, the cast section may need some rearranging depending who actually will receive starting credits.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the cast section will obviously adjust as we get more info/a press release/billing block. To Adam's point, there is definitely the intent to start, with all the sources showing New York's filming notices on the telephone poles, so even if it was delayed because of COVID or another reason, the article still passes notability, so I think the move can occur. Because I would think it would be a "days" delay, not a "months" delay like earlier in the year. So in that case, I'll plan to make the move early on Thursday and then we can all make sure links/redirects and such are in place where they need to be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, as I am a random person on the internet who happens to be in the NYC area, I know another random person on the internet who is saying they are starting filming today. I'll keep my eyes peeled if some source comes up to confirm that. But otherwise, I'm planning to move the draft tomorrow around 9 am EST/6 am PST/1 pm GMT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I found this photo on Reddit indicating filming began today. However, I would be fine with moving the article tomorrow since there are no articles confirming this.-Richiekim (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's exciting. I'm all for moving it tomorrow unless a reliable sources reports on it today, then I'd be for moving it today if that happens. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw that picture just now too. So far haven't seen any reliable sources pick up on it. I'm popping in an out of here throughout the day, so if one does report on it, and someone puts it here before me, when I see it, I'll move. Otherwise, I'll stick to tomorrow morning as planned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Things have started to trend on Twitter, so we might get something we can use by the end of the day with a site picking up on that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, filming has begun and the source is already used. It is not WP:POISON, so please perform a round-robin move. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

First look and production start confirm

I don't know if we can use this info that occurred as ExpoCine. It comes from Murphy's Multiverse (unreliable), but the author of that article at Murphy's Multiverse was in attendance at the event, so I wasn't sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to wait until we get further confirmation. You are right, Murphy's Multiverse is an unreliable source, so it is best to wait for actual reliable news sources to confirm it. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Rumors about Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield joining to again reprise Peter Parker

I know it is a rumor but Sony has said it is not confirmed but they did not say it was denied https://www.altpress.com/news/sony-spider-man-3-cast-trailer-date
Kohcohf (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, there really is not any actual confirmation that Maguire and Garfield have even been approached for any upcoming Marvel film. It is just rumors for now, until Feige, Maguire, and/or Garfield actually speak out about this situation. For now, there is no reliable enough sources to include the actors. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

ok Kohcohf (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Seamus McGarvey

Are we sure he’s the cinematographer? I know he’s linked in the article but he’s also DPing Cyrano, which is filming in Italy. I just don’t see how he could be the DP for both of these currently filming movies that are shooting in two very far apart places in the world. Additionally, Spiderman isn’t on his IMDB either. Rusted AutoParts 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The info comes from DiscussingFilm. Is it a reliable source? From the team at their own website, it seems there is editorial oversight. But I'm not entirely sure what the criteria is to deem a source reliable. El Millo (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider DiscussingFilm to be reliable, but the source is from pre-lockdown so it could be out of date information. It also could not be and they are going to make it work somehow. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Times like this is why I wish Marvel didn’t stop putting out their start of production press releases. Rusted AutoParts 20:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

Tom Holland, who plays Spider-Man in this film, confirmed on his Instagram live that filming had wrapped in New York and he had just arrived in Atlanta last night to continue filming. 50.45.172.174 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear what is being asked to be added. Please state what you wish added to the article that isn't already there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Batalon weight loss

This appears to perhaps be just a personal choice, but the character will also now be slimmer. Should we mention this? The CBR article says Batalon lost exactly 102 pounds for the upcoming film so that's why I thought it might be worthwhile to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I say Go ahead. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be worth a mention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the information to the filming section. I feel it could be adjusted and/or placed elsewhere, but it's there now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Moved to the cast section for Batalon's part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sony's CCXP panel

Just a heads up for regular page watchers, Sony has a panel this weekend at CCXP in Brazil, and its Latin America channel posted a video early (probably) that is giving some weight to the Maguire/Garfield rumors since it said in Spider-Man 3 you will quite possibly see everyone — yes — the three Peter Parker saving the world together. We could get concrete confirmation on these casting as well as maybe a title this weekend. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That could be possible and Sony themselves deleted it but for now just don't add until they fully says it is true. Ps: If it is true, it is kinda funny that Sony themselves spoiled the biggest part (Spider-Verse) it instead of Tom Holland who is known to spoil everything. Kohcohf (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential Spider-Verse

While I know it's all speculation and rumors floating around. But there's a lot of it to support the possibility. I do suggest we should add that info or a small section of it considering it caught Sony's attention that they responded to the unofficial casting rumors. Plus all the Dr. Strange and Electro stuff puts the cherry on top of things CM Magnet (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already discussion of the potential for Spider-Verse elements in the article. We should not be adding unconfirmed rumours though. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yea, you're right CM Magnet (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well well well. Look at how turn tables CM Magnet (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Garfield, Dunst, Maguire

Collider says that Garfield and Dunst are returning and Maguire is negotiating [1]. Mike210381 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Collider reports Tobey Maguire, Andrew, Garfield, and Emma Stone will be back for Spider-Man 3

Collider is reporting Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Andrew Garfield, and Emma Stone will be back for Spider-Man 3: https://collider.com/spider-man-3-cast-doc-ock-alfred-molina-andrew-garfield/.

Hoping we can add this into the film's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Maguire and Stone are still iffy according to Collider: "if Sony/Marvel can close a deal with Tobey Maguire, he'll be back too. Kirsten Dunst will return as MJ, and I expect Emma Stone to reprise her role as Gwen Stacy, pregnancy permitting." - Richiekim (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m really not fully confident in this source. Maguire and Garfield returning as their versions of Spider-Man is surely big news that the major trades would be reporting on it right? The only casting the major trades like Deadline and Hollywood Reporter reported on was Molina. Rusted AutoParts 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This THR analysis piece also doesn’t make mention of this massive report. I’m thinking Collider could be jumping the gun or the major trades are waiting for all the ducks to be in a row before reporting it. Rusted AutoParts 22:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

/Film published thier own analysis which mentions the Collider article. - Richiekim (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing them for now. They can be re-added once a reliable trade publication (aka not the enthusiast press) confirms their involvement. Morgan695 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I see my edits were reverted by User:Richiekim and User:Trailblazer101; I think it's worth noting that Collider is not listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, and per User:Rusted AutoParts, no trade publication or otherwise unambiguously reliable source (THR, etc) has confirmed Garfield or Dunst's involvement. Morgan695 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: Collider is a reliable source. If there were "rankings" or "levels" to film sources, you have the trades (Variety, THR, Deadline, sometime TheWrap and EW) at the top, then it would be followed by sites like Collider, /Film, TheWrap, and EW. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources is an incomplete list, and helpful to look for info. So this is reliable info is not enthusiast press and we appropriately state it for what it is - discussions. Enthusiast press would be fan site or blogs, like the rumors of these castings we got a few months ago. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Like it’s not so much I don’t trust Collider, they have broke some news before, I’m just concerned it could be jumping the gun, as it seems only Collider is saying this. I figured Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Variety would be all over giant news such as this. Rusted AutoParts 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's possible they know about it, but haven't fully vetted their sources to feel comfortable reporting, but Collider was. Just guessing based on how these things usually work... For the record, I don't think we are inaccurately stating anything, and in some very few examples, one of the trades will report something, and the others don't corroborate so this isn't unheard of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Richiekim User:Rusted AutoParts User:Trailblazer101 User:Favre1fan93 User:Falserumorsmustbefixed I've started an RfC on this matter below. Morgan695 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Cox

A heads up, Murphy’s Multiverse, not a confirmed reliable source, has reported Cox is reprising Daredevil and it had been picked up by a handful of other non reliable or kinda reliable sources. Expect an influx of people trying to add him in. Rusted AutoParts 17:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw... thanks Rusted AutoParts! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable, but they've got things right from time to time - I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up mustard. If Deadline reports on it in the next day or two then it should be fine - not that it matters to most since the page is now locked. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:DCBB:4773:1A1D:818F (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Empire reported on this as well, corroborating the initial report. We should probably wait until more sources confirm this however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't a corroboration, just a relay. Like I said, Murphy has a fairly accurate track record so a lot of sites will report on his leaks without bothering to do much background checking and source digging. If a site like Deadline, Hollywood Reporter or io9 report the same news, then you can safely add it into the main page. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:DCBB:4773:1A1D:818F (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Empire didn’t “corroborate”, they just reported that Murphy reported it. Rusted AutoParts 22:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Streffo123 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Wish to add Charlie Cox as Matt Murdock/Daredevil to the Cast of The Untitled Spider-Man Far From Home Sequel

It’s unconfirmed/unreliable reported as of now, so no. Rusted AutoParts 10:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these are confirmed, there is no evidence to anything except for Doctor Strange/Benedict Cumberbatch

Don't trust this article, there are no sources or any evidence backing up these claims whatsoever, these are just rumors. Sony and Marvel haven't actually confirmed anything yet. Falserumorsmustbefixed (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s just not true. We have very strong sources confirming the participation of Foxx and Molina. While I’m slightly skeptical right now of the Maguire/Garfield/Dunst/Stone additions, Collider had generally been a reliable source as well. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, none of these are confirmed. Also to the second guy, your strong sources don't matter if they aren't providing evidence. They need to give proper evidence like set photos of the cast on it (ie. Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange seen on set of Spider-Man 3). Alfred Molina and Jamie Foxx are more than likely to be in Spider-Man 3, but are not yet confirmed, please know the difference between being confirmed and being speculated. Burnedmyhandwithtoast (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

The Collider article has absolutely zero evidence that Dunst, Garfield or Stone are returning. It even says in the article that this is just the guess of the writer. The only actor confirmed is Alfred Molina, so this page is very misleading and does not tell the real facts. --207.44.108.76 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• @207.44.108.76: I would recommend commenting in the Request for Comment above so that consensus can be built on how to proceed. Morgan695 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Collider is a verifiable source on Wikipedia. io9 also reported on these as well, so it's fine unless an equally or more reliable source refutes it. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:DCBB:4773:1A1D:818F (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• @207.44.108.76: The only guessing was Stone's involvment. And do you realize that neither Deadline or THR give more evidence that their news are right than mentioning their sources? Like Collider?

You know, we don’t need to be smacking around every rumor in existence on Wikipedia, especially when it’s just meaningless speculation. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Source

Hi. Is this a reliable source? IKhitron (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That source cites Collider. DonQuixote (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This was yes or no? IKhitron (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't, but to DonQuioxte's point, it is citing Collider's article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing Collider makes it redundant. DonQuixote (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. IKhitron (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker from Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man films Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. The girlfriend of Peter Parker from Sam Raimi's Trilogy Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. The girlfriend of Peter Parker from Marc Webb's duology, it's not been confirmed how she will return. 82.31.88.94 (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2021 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Verification

Has this been officially announced by marvel or sony? 104.173.220.117 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

...As in is this movie confirmed to happen? Considering it’s filming....yes? Rusted AutoParts 21:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it was announced back in September 2019 when they made a new deal to share the character in film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Inclusion of Maguire, Garfield, Stone, and Dunst

As myself and other editors have raised concerns about how Collider appears to be the only source reporting on this casting, I think an RfC is the best option.

Should we:

• Option 1: Keep the article as is.
• Option 2: Remove all references to Maguire, Garfield, Stone, and Dunst until a reliable trade publication confirms their involvement.
• Option 3: Remove Maguire, Garfield, Stone, and Dunst from cast lists, but mention in "Production" that Collider reported that they had been cast/were in talks to be cast in December.

Morgan695 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, The Hollywood Reporter states; "...at least three different incarnations of Spider-Man will be represented in the movie: Tobey Maguire’s, Andrew Garfield’s and Tom Holland’s".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is that not in regards to the fact a version of a villain from the Raimi films and a version of a villain from the Webb films are returning in this film? I could be wrong but I still feel that would’ve been it’s own article from them and not a footnote in an analysis about the Molina return. Rusted AutoParts 20:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but RSs are allowed to make those types of inferences. We, however, are not. Remember WP:NOTTRUTH. I'm just putting it out there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I took THR's quote to mean the Spider-Men from the past two franchises will be represented in this film by Molina and Foxx, not that this was their way of reporting on Maguire and Garfield being in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. Personally think it's worth noting that it's been reported, but I'm not convinced the Collider article is reliable enough to state that this is definitively happening. Morgan695 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: This RfC seems unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Adamstom. El Millo (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Same as Adam. Nothing has come forth to dispute Collider's report or reliability. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed for the reasons stated by adam and Trailblazer101. Gistech (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Adam and all above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 because none of the trade papers, the most reliable sources, are actually confirming this. Other movie websites that reference this are saying "reportedly". The writer himself says "They're all coming back," then waffles on Maguire and Stone with their specific matters, and doesn't declare an "exclusive". It is more op-ed in nature than actual reporting. If we are to use Collider at all, it should be with in-text attribution. It is overly certain of Wikipedia to list Garfield and Dunst as certainties based only on Collider. Maybe it will all pan out in the long run, but Wikipedia doesn't need to be in a hurry. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To add on, just saw that The Guardian here says, "If a report in Collider is to be believed, the studios are also hoping to bring back..." Not the strongest vote of confidence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Erik. I’m just too squirmish about adding these names when it’s not being corroborated by the stronger trades. This is too big a casting report to not get picked up by the others. Rusted AutoParts 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 is the best, Option 1 is misleading and dumb because the castings are only rumors until confirmed by hard evidence, such as set photos of the cast and/or official confirmation by Marvel/Sony Burnedmyhandwithtoast (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. the reports by our most reliable secondary sources are more than enough evidence, and it's what's most used for casting in general. El Millo (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, if it matters, what we currently have in the way of sourcing seems to be enough to mention the castings, and I believe that's currently being done consistent with Wikipedia's principles relating to a neutral point of view and reliable sourcing. And it's apparent from what's available and what has been reported that other sources will follow suit with confirmation of this information. Based on these clear-cut facts, there is more than enough grounds, IMHO, to leave the information in the article. If any of it proves to be incorrect, subsequent sources will disprove it. In any case, we go where the evidence and cited sources currently lead us, and right now, that's to the conclusion that most (if not all) of these individuals will be involved. Until cited sources state anything else officially, that's where things stand, and that's what we should report. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Right. Whether this information ends up being actually right or wrong eventually, we are justified in including it with the evidence currently available to us. El Millo (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Pure violation of WP:V. The other sources are saying "reportedly" in regard to Collider.com, yet Wikipedia is conveying the improper tone of confirming this report outright. I've added in-text attribution and removed some content until we get verification from authoritative sources (e.g., the trade papers) about this matter. Jgstokes, that is not how Wikipedia works when we are dealing with a source not as reliable as the trade papers when these very papers have not followed. Wikipedia needs to follow, not lead, especially to not convert a report into outright confirmation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

As an example, this says of this report and the Daredevil report, "Those reports are unverified." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

On the policy page of WP:NPOV, WP:WIKIVOICE says, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." We should not write Collider's information as facts if other sources are considering it "reported" and not confirmed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone! I am putting in an additional comment here and now because I read something a short while ago that may have bearing on the listed cast for this movie for the next short while. What I read pertains to the point made in the comment just above mine here, which was published in mid-December. While I am not sure whether this source meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability as far as MCU news is concerned, this article contains a vague acknwledgement from Kevin Feigie himself, which noted that some of the casting rumors about this movie are correct, and others he's read about are not. The article goes on to note that the only castings which seem to not be in doubt are that of Foxx and Molina. A couple of thoughts on this: As I said, the source may not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Second, it only contains a vague statement from Feige and some personal speculation on the part of the author of the article, and as such should probably be taken with a grain of salt. And finally, we have ssome sources already that appear to confirm casting which, per Feige's statement as cited in the article, may or may not be accurate. I am not sure what to make of that, but I imagine that, until closer to the time, specifics about casting accuracy may very well be up to speculation and/or interpretation from reliable sources that do meet Wikipedia standards. Just wanted to put that information out there, in case anything from that article can be used. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We already do include the more reliable source where Feige's interview came from (here) in this article for other comments he made, but I feel it would be best not to include Feige's comments on the castings as he did state they were "online speculations" and didn't address which ones he was actually referring to. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A December 23, 2020 article from Variety (here) weighed in on the casting reports of this film: Bolding the notable part. This co-production with Sony Pictures is reportedly going all in on the multiverse, casting a parade of actors from previous “Spider-Man” iterations alongside Tom Holland’s web-slinger, including Alfred Molina (the villain Doctor Octopus from “Spider-Man 2”) and Jamie Foxx (the villain Electro from “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”). Unconfirmed reports also suggest that Andrew Garfield and Kirsten Dunst could appear in the film, though it’s unclear how much screen time any of these actors would get beyond a cameo. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

For now, I have edited out Garfield and Dunst from the billing and not including them in prose to prevent edit disputes about that. I have readded the Collider source's information into production as it was removed by Erik without agreement. I still believe this isn't necessary as no reliable source has disputed Collider's report and third-party sources are just casting it aside without their own sources. As editors, we should conclude a consensus on what to do with this matter through a discussion rather than state point-by-point opinions and continue edits without coming to a common ground. Myself and many of the editors who actively edit this page and other MCU articles are in favor of the Collider source's information as we see nothing wrong or unreliable in it's report.Other editors seem to have problems with it, and I encourage a casual discussion of these concerns to be brought up by all parties considered. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

102 pounds Doomslug1 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2021 (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. Terasail II^[✉] 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

https://hypebae.com/2020/12/spider-man-3-cast-confirmed-tom-holland-andrew-garfield-zendaya-kirsten-dunst-benedict-cumberbatch-emma-stone-marvel-movie-release

I have an question,

is this https://hypebae.com/2020/12/spider-man-3-cast-confirmed-tom-holland-andrew-garfield-zendaya-kirsten-dunst-benedict-cumberbatch-emma-stone-marvel-movie-release a good source? Yes or No

Please reply

Never heard of them. Rusted AutoParts 05:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't reliable confirmation as it doesn't appear they cite an unverified Twitter account. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Kartiksingh12345 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert Downloy Jr. is set to appear, please write it

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉] 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. He reprises his role from Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man Duology Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker. He reprises his role from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. It is unknown whether she'll reprise her role from Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man Duology or she will be another universe version of named character. Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. She reprises her role from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy as a girlfriend of Tobey Maguire's Peter. 82.31.88.94 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2021 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield Involvement in Untitled Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel

I think found a pretty reliable Source that confirms Regarding Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield Involvement in Untitled Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel, A Sony source closely involved with Spider-Man 3 has confirmed that both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield have signed on to reprise their respective Spider-Man roles next to Tom Holland’s Peter Parker. It's up to you to decide if it is reliable or not Chip3004 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That source is from 3 months ago and does not have validity for its claims. FandomWire is generally just an unreliable source. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Please remove the unsourced information in the, stating that a fourth Spider-Man film is also in production when, again, it is unsourced and hasn't been confirmed anywhere. 217.245.109.250 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The information is verifiably sourced and was confirmed by Sony with their initial split. Nothing has deconfirmed its development since. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There is also literally a discussion about this topic right above this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Andrew Garfield (12th Feburary 2021)

Adding Andrew Garfield to the cast list of Spider-Man: No Way Home. 150.143.172.25 (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Text: Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series) He reprises his role from Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man film series.

Have you been living under a rock? Turns out Garfield's not appearing. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this could be the Civil War situation again. They were denying Spider-Man will appear until they actually reached an agreement IIRC. An ironclad statement on the matter should come from the studio itself, not an actor who could have been told not to say anything, or might not even have been told in the first place. Gistech (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There is already consensus to exclude Garfield and any rumored or unconfirmed actors from the cast billing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Garfield has been spotted on set, filming scenes for No Way Home. 150.143.172.25 (talk)

References

Title Of The Film

Sony and Marvel Studios confirmed on February 24th, that the name of the third installment will be Spider-Man: No Way Home". C3rtii654 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

AidanBigT (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) the name of the film has been released and i would like to edit it to make it so that the viewers of this page can see so

 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. TJScalzo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As a side note it appears the cast behind this film are making jokes regarding the title.Source here So until we get an official confirmation from Marvel that it is that title, it stays as "untitled" RareButterflyDoors (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On another side note, Holland will appear on The Tonight Show tonight, so maybe we'll get some news on this film there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Holland Denial of Maguire, Garfield

I'd just like to bring this up to other editors actively watching and editing this article that in an Esquire interview released today, Holland had this to say about the reports of Maguire and Garfield appearing, after talking about Marvel Studios' misdirection on prior films like Endgame: When I ask Holland about this possibility, he is suddenly positive he knows what he’s talking about. “No, no, they will not be appearing in this film,” he says firmly. “Unless they have hidden the most massive piece of information from me, which I think is too big of a secret for them to keep from me. But as of yet, no. It’ll be a continuation of the Spider-Man movies that we’ve been making.” I'm not too sure how we are to interpret this for this article and the information in it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That does sound important. Even though he might be lying and actors in the MCU often do about the films, this is an explicit and unambiguous denial of their appearance. Whereas before he'd been ambiguous, saying things like "beats me, if they do they haven't told me", this sounds like a confirmation that they won't be appearing. I don't know if it's enough to simply remove the actors from the Production section and write it off as an already refuted rumor, but it's certainly seems worth mentioning. —El Millo (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nuke the content entirely. The Collider masked speculation should never have been in Wikipedia's voice in the first place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Would that include removing Kirsten Dunst as well? Since it's the same report we're using for her appearance. —El Millo (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly reading this as just a way for Holland to deflect speculation. If we include this, and then come a few years from now, will it be relevant to include in the article when it is very likely not to be true? No. But if we keep it hidden, we can put this in in what is seemingly the highly unlikely event these actors aren't appearing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

While it is likely that it's a lie, it is the most current information on the subject, and it's denying reports that haven't been confirmed, it's not like it's denying something that we already know for sure to be true. I think both the report and its denial should be mentioned, without stating which one is to be given more credit. —El Millo (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should treat this "denial" info like we have with Tatiana Maslany's denial of her She-Hulk casting and include it as relevant information of the time, given we don't know which one actually is correct to begin with. It is very likely Marvel and Sony haven't told Holland yet and are awaiting for them to film together, or this is actually telling us directly the other actors aren't in it. I feel we should present both of these as we did for the Maslany info for those reasons. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include this as a denial, but I wouldn't take it as 100% confirmation that they are not in it. My preference would be to say their casting was reported and then later denied by Holland, and then wait until we get further information. That reflects what we know and is what I would expect to see at this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the article, I think we should separate all of Collider's information from THR's report on Molina, and have the Collider bit start off with "Collider reported that..." and mention 1) Garfield, 2) Dunst, 3) Stone, and then 4) Maguire. Would it also be worth it to add in bits from reliable sites like THR, Deadline, or Variety mentioning how these are "unconfirmed", or would that be too much? Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be fine, given that this was particularly treated with a grain of salt by most outlets, while other reports by Collider have been treated as completely reliable in the past. —El Millo (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and adjusted the information and added a bit from Variety stating these are unconfirmed. Feel free to make any adjustments. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That looks good to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Collider's article today on an interview with Holland states this (bolding relevant bit): There's also the fact that rumors have been swirling that Spider-Man 3 will open up the multiverse, which could be a reason why the script is in flux a bit. We know for sure that Jamie Foxx's Electro and Alfred Molina's Doc Ock are reprising their roles from two different Spidey universes in the Marvel-Sony collaboration, and if the film is dependent upon making last-minute deals with folks like, say, Tobey Maguire, then there has to be an alternate version of the script that doesn't include Maguire's character. I'm not sure if this bit on Maguire is useful or necessary, but Collider does seem confident in their prior report and the likelihood that Maguire's deal or deals for others may fall through, although this wording does seem a bit dodgy by appearing to make assumptions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021 (2)

I would like the title to be changed from “Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel” to “Spider-Man: No Way Home”. 150.143.172.25 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It is being worked on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedily moved, per confirmation of official title. BD2412 T 19:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel → Spider-Man: No Way Home – Film lead Tom Holland revealed the film's title on a social media post on Instagram today: TehPlaneFreak! talk 18:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Need an admin to fix the page as someone did an improper copy/paste move. Spanneraol (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, it was a nightmarish redirect loop. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I know. I've put in a request at WP:RPP to have the protection removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree; the name of the film has now been confirmed from Holland's Instagram account. Jimania16 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actors don't speak for the production and WP:ABOUTSELF means we can't use an actor's social media to this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy agree: The official Marvel website has also made the announcement. https://www.marvel.com/articles/movies/spider-man-no-way-home-tom-holland-title-reveal –WPA (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, is authoritative and can be used to support the change of name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent News, Thanks for the amazing change :) Chip3004 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree: Not controversial, Marvel has reported on this. - Richiekim (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree (and speedy move) - Uncontroversial. Should be moved speedily (I've made a request at WP:RM/TR, since only administrators can move this page since the title was unknown until today.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree: Per official announcement by producers. Ignore what actors say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is a technical request because of the move protection and copy/paste moves. A request has been made at WP:RMT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

References

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is Spider-Man 4 really in development?

Sony and Marvel has announced that Spider-Man will appear at least ONE solo film and ONE team up film many months ago but they did not say two more films for Spider-Man is coming.

They did not really say a fourth film is in development.Kohcohf (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Per our source, Sony began development on a fourth film after their split from Marvel. Just because the new deal does not include a fourth film yet does not mean that development has stopped. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggest that the "Future" section be elaborated on, as to say: "In August 2019, after failed negotiations between Marvel Studios and Sony led to a temporary split, Deadline reported that Sony was still interested in developing at least two sequels to Spider-Man: Far From Home with lead actor Tom Holland and Director Jon Watts, without the involvement of producer Kevin Feige or Marvel Studios. However, in September of that same year, Sony and Marvel Studios reached a new agreement to co-produce a third Spider-Man film, leaving the fate of a potential fourth film uncertain." RyanClarke00 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"because of fan reaction a new deal was made between the studios"

where is the citation for this? Its getting tiresome how much power fandom imagines they have on social media, without citations there's no reason to post this kind of phrasing in the introduction of the article. Its practically editorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1DF0:31C0:1CCE:B42A:47C8:4D45 (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s mentioned in the body of the article so it doesn’t need to be sourced in the lead.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021 (2)

2A0C:5A80:1D0E:7100:A887:1898:C54A:DBE2 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2021 (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. Ididntknowausername (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Adding of this line in the Marketing section-" with Spider-Man: No Way Home in the center and then confirmed as the official title". FS11h1 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Not needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Title Reveal Date

I would like to make a request that the sentance "The title was revealed in Feburary 2021" to "The title was revealed on Feburary 24th 2021". This is more accurate then just saying Feburary 2021. User 150.143.172.25 (talk). 08:45, Thursday 25th Feburary 2021.

•  Not done Specificity is not needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021 (3)

Remove the part about the inside out cast reprising their roles as it's neither true nor plausible. 2600:1702:4910:7170:D978:26C8:851B:BF9B (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Its inclusion was vandalism. Any unsourced statement recently added should be immediately removed. —El Millo (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Music - FV

The sentence in the music section fails verification, as it says "Happy to be heading home again!" and does not say when Giacchino began scoring the film. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's true, and that's why the wording was changed. It doesn't indicate when he started scoring, just that he would. I'll the "failed verification" tag, but the discussion can go on in relation to this if others wish so. —El Millo (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The current wording does not match either of the two sources, so it fails verification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In which way does it not match them? The first source is the report by CinemaBlend, the second one is Giacchino's confirmation in November 2020. The wording is literally Michael Giacchino was set to score the film by November 2020 and nothing else, apart from stating he scored the previous two. —El Millo (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the second bit about the previous two was in the first source (but not the second). The bit about him being set to score the film by November 2020 is not mentioned in either source. CinemaBlend says he is likely returning but does not say when, Giacchino's tweet just says ""Happy to be heading home again!" and not when he is scoring the film. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The tweet is from November 2020. The sentence states that he was set to return by November 2020, because that's the earliest we know he was confirmed to return. Being set to score the film doesn't mean that he began scoring it, it means that he was chosen to be the composer. The sentence only means that by November 2020 he had been selected as the composer of the film, because we don't know if he'd been set as the composer earlier but just allowed to disclose it in November. —El Millo (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What El Millo said is correct. The prior wording was inaccurate, so it was adjusted to follow what the sources state. Based on Giacchino's tweet, in which he posted an image of Holland in his Spider-Man suit from the No Way Home set (which Holland previously posted), we know he will be scoring this film, so the article now reflects that. The Cinema Blend article talked about how he was "likely" going to return, but was not confirmed until his post. I'm not sure what else could be disputed about that section's info and its sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Cast Listing

Why are Andrew Garfield and Charlie Cox listed in the cast? Neither of those actors have been confirmed to be appearing in the film, so why are they listed? FilmLover72 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by “confirmed”?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody from Marvel or the actors themselves have said that they will appear in the movie FilmLover72 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

They were unhidden in the cast list by an IP user. The mistake has been reverted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Remember per WP:V, "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." That source need not be a primary source and per WP:WHYN, "We require that all articles rely primarily on 'third-party' or 'independent sources'." That said, there appear to be conflicting sources on this specific piece of information so it has been hidden for now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated Cast

On Twitter today (5/3/21), the Spider-Man: No Way Home official account recieved a new bio (from the official Twitter account) which read (I quote): "#SpiderManNoWayHome starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield, only in movie theaters this Christmas".

I think this is enough evidence and a genuine reason to add Andrew Garfield (and Tobey Maguire) to the cast list of No Way Home. 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have a new bio. Twitter's account posted that in response to the film's profile. see here. It's not confirmed nor official. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

But if the OFFICIAL description for the OFFICIAL account for the film has their name's in the description, that most likely means they are in the film. 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, just to clarify we do NOT need "OFFICIAL" sources, but since there are conflicting sources it maybe best to wait.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, we do NOT need official sources? 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

See the thread above, all the source needs to be is reliable, not offical.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Twitter suggested it as a new bio. The official account is not using it, meaning we can't say it is confirmed or official. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll wait until Garfield is confirmed then. 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC) There is a lot of evidence to support Garfield returning though. The Collider report (https://collider.com/spider-man-3-cast-doc-ock-alfred-molina-andrew-garfield/), the set photos, the leaked teaser that got taken down but showed Garfield and Maguire, the Paramount Twitter Christmas tweet that had Garfield and Maguire side by side etc. 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Batalon weight loss

Should we mention Batalon's weight loss in the cast section? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 'Not done: Batalon's weight loss is already mentioned in the Cast section. User 146.199.189.161 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)150.143.172.25 (talk).

It was not an edit request, it was a question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Boycott campaign in India

There is a huge boycott campaign underway in India after supporters of the Hindu nationalist leader Narendra Modi confused the writer Tom Holland (who mocked Modi for naming stadiums after himself) with his namesake actor who is the lead in the new cycle of Spider-man movies. Needs to be added, especially since Marvel views India as an huge emerging market for its movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.85.215 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You'd have to provide reliable sources that cover this. —El Millo (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Indian media The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/indian-twitter-targets-the-wrong-tom-holland-trends-boycottspiderman/article33939339.ece NDTV https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indians-are-boycotting-actor-spiderman-actor-tom-holland-for-narendra-modi-stadium-comment-2379500 The Week https://www.theweek.in/news/entertainment/2021/02/25/author-tom-holland-mocks-modi-a-section-of-indians-call-for-boycott-of-spiderman-movie.html India Today https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news/story/twitter-says-boycott-spider-man-will-trend-after-tom-holland-s-modi-tweet-here-s-the-twist-1772985-2021-02-25

International media The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/india-twitter-boycott-spider-man-b1807916.html Channel News Asia https://cnalifestyle.channelnewsasia.com/trending/spider-man-star-tom-holland-mistaken-indian-twitter-14290026 Daily Sabah https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/cinema/spider-man-threatened-with-boycott-in-india-in-twitter-mix-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.85.215 (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems very useful, TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93 please share your views on whether this should be included. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems rather anecdotal. We’ll see if anything actually becomes of it, or if it clears up overnight and all is forgotten.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat's assessment, especially because we are still over 6 months before the film is even going to release. By that time, this won't matter. If this was happening right around release, then perhaps it would be notable, as it could affect box office etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As you would rightly put it, the topic will most likely be forgotten by the time the film releases. But sometimes mishaps by the cast and crew have resulted in their film's premiere/release being affected. Remember Liam Neeson on Cold Pursuit? Keep watch if that repeats here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

True but in this case the controversy is from angry Hindu nationalists confusing Tom Holland for an author of the same name that mocked their leader, not something the actor said or did, like was the case with Neeson. I’m quite confident that the populace of India will realize they are different people and that the boycott will be long forgotten by the time the film comes out.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Alfred Molina’s take on Otto Octavius/Dr. Octopus in this film being the same as his take on the character in “Spider-Man 2” is found by me to be slightly questionable.

If this version of the character is the same as from “Spider-Man 2” then Toby Maguire’s and Andrew Garfield’s apparent portrayals of parallel versions of Parker/Spiderman might be the same as their takes on the characters in the films they portrayed the character himself in, yet there is no proper evidence for that and nor is there so for such actor’s involvement in this film. Plus whatsoever suggestions about this take on Dr. Octopus being the same as mentioned might very possibly be some part of a secrecy campaign of some sort, and yet how illogical could it be to say that that is true if Maguire’s and Garfield’s involvement in this film is even as so much as even not yet confirmed to be true is something at least for me to know not of. LordMegatron88000 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Your edits have no relation with Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield, you're removing reliably sourced and relevant information from the interviews with Alfred Molina, and you're changing wording to be awkwardly phrased and of poor grammar. Plus, you're edit warring and repeatedly reinstating your version after being reverted, which per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO you shouldn't be doing. Until an issue is resolved, the status quo stays and the bold edit, i.e. your edit in this case, remains reverted. —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Facu-el Millo, there is an actual source included saying the actor has confirmed this is the same character. You cannot just remove that because you somehow don't trust the actor. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on editors' opinions. IronManCap (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC):

FWIW, I also agree with Facu-el Millo. When an individual editor disagrees with sourced material, Wikipedia stands by the sources, unless and until other sources verify that editor's previous objections. So, LordMegatron88000, an open challenge for you. Produce at least one (more than one would be preferable) reliable source that meets Wikipedia standards that verify your expressed position on this issue. If we can look over sources that support your position, you're more likely to have your concerns taken more seriously. If you are unwilling or unable to find or cite any such sources, we go by what the sources say, and the sources cited are pretty clear regarding Molina's understanding of the role he is playing in this movie. Until a counter-source can be provided to verify your suspicions, they are nothing more and nothing less than your own opinion, which may be found to be in error in any or all respects once this movie is released in December of this year. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically this comes from no matter of mere opinion but distrust of the sources you all refer to, as it would be pointless to have Molina’s take on the character he is to play in this film be the same as the previous take on this character unless the Maguire and Garfield versions of Parker/Spider-Man also appear which there is no proper confirmation over, and that is the point of my words. LordMegatron88000 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It would make no sense to you from a creative standpoint, apparently. That is your personal opinion, which has no weight on whether we include this or not. —El Millo (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Above and beyond that, LordMegatron88000, if you personaly mistrust the sources cited but do not cite any sources to verify that your mistrust is justified, it really is no mre and no less than your own opinion, and individual editors' personal opinions are not admissible as factors to consider, nor are they relevant. So unless you have a source to back up your opinion, my recommendation to you is to drop the stick. You have not provided any evidence, reliable or otherwise, to justiy your claims here. The poor horse is long dead. Tim to stop flogging the poor thing. Unlss you are willing to find and share any evidence, I consider it high time to end what has been an entirely pointless line of discussion, full stop. I'd therefore like to request that any admins reading this thread close it, and archive it, since it has been an utter and complete waste of time for all concerned --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I just said it had nothing to do with mere opinion, alone mistrust, yet will still stop talking nonetheless if that will be enough for you to not threaten me again, as I neither accept threats nor condescending remarks, and brought this thread up in the first place because of my mere questioning the validity of it all. LordMegatron88000 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see what in my previous comment to you could possibly be perceived as a threat. But I apologize if you felt threatened by what I said or the way I said it. It's not problematic for you personally to distrust anything you read here on Wikipedia or in the cited sources. But for the general readership of Wikipedia, any individual editor not trusting a source or believing it to be credible should not mean that the information cannot be listed. The information is correct per the sources cited for verification of it. If you mistrust what is in the currently-cited sources, you can feel free to bring sources up here that confirm your mistrust as justified. If it's simply a matter of personal mistrust of the cited sources, that's not a problem of sufficient magnitude that it needs to be adjusted. If you have sources verifying your opinion, let's get those up on this page for discussion. If you have nothing more than your own personal mistrust, then belaboring a discussion about that mistrust is not a good idea. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Invisible Comment

In the invisible comment, only Andrew Garfield, Kirsten Dunst, and Charlie Cox are listed. Should we add Tobey Maguire, because if Garfield is listed, it would only make sense to add Maguire. MarvelMovieFan (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There have been no reputable sources confirming Maguire is in the cast, unlike for Garfield, Dunst, or Cox. Collider confirmed Maguire is in talks, and that Emma Stone is expected to return, but until a source outright confirms they are returning, we shouldn't have them in the hidden listing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Kirsten Dunst and Emma Stone

Are the rumours true that Kirsten Dunst and Emma Stone are going to reprise their roles as Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy respectively in the MCU?

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC))

Currently, any "rumors" you speak of are not official, per WP:RUMOR. This was literally discussed right above this and the info is made clear in the article body. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

MJ

Adamstom.97, you may want to see MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Etymology, where it is stated that the name 'Michelle Jones' is unofficial and only referred to as such in media. I referenced WP:CRYSTAL because the name has not been confirmed by Marvel or Sony yet, and as such it is an assumption that that is her full name. IronManCap (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not an assumption or a WP:CRYSTAL violation because it is reliably sourced. This has been widely discussed already. It sounds to me like MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Etymology is saying something it shouldn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: The name is unofficial as it has not been confirmed by Marvel or Sony, or in the films. It was a name coined in media and used colloquially. The source I included here doesn't say the name is canon, it just refers to her as 'Michelle Jones'. This fact was agreed at Talk:MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Surname "Jones" not official. I hate to say it, but this is looking like a WP:COMMONSENSE situation. IronManCap (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Her name is officially Michelle or MJ, and we have a reliable source telling us that her full name is Michelle Jones. Per WP:COMMONSENSE, that should be included. We don't update the cast listing because that should follow credits, but it should be included. This was already agreed upon for the film articles, consensus should not have been changed for the character article without including those from the previous discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:RSCONTEXT matters. Per that, each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. If it was confirmed in films that this was her name, and the source was restating that, then no problem. However, the source is merely coining a colloquial way of referring to her in the absence of the knowledge of her last name (for now). It is not claiming that 'Michelle Jones' is canon, it is just referring to her as that. Even if it is an WP:RS, a name it has coined should not go into this article as fact without considering the context. I would kindly ask you, adamstom.97, to refer to any previous discussions about this that I am not aware of. Also pinging @TriiipleThreat, Jhenderson777, and Facu-el Millo: for further discussion. IronManCap (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't just decide when a source has made up information when it suits your argument. Also, you don't need to keep pinging me as I am watching this page. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't just decided that, it hasn't been confirmed by the creators of the films. There's no proof otherwise that the source hasn't coined this when it was never canon or mentioned by Marvel or Sony. This is the consensus of the writers of the MJ article, not just my opinion. Also, could you please provide some links to previous discussions you keep referencing? Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We have reliable sources of the highest caliber like The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, and Variety using it. There's no need for official confirmation from Sony or Marvel. Until it's contradicted by the studio, we have more than enough to treat this name as a fact. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we modify MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to include this information then? IronManCap (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. —El Millo (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheez. So many sources that believe they know what they are talking about. By all means include that in the etymology. Though IMO this is why I take what media says with a grain of salt some times. It is an obvious colloquial term by the news media. I will give it that. Has anyone though of writing a note about this issue on these film pages about the issues? They usually help. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Spider-Verse

The Spider-Verse is so far unconfirmed, but this links to an article that confirms the involvement of Maguire, Garfield, Dunst and Stone. Should we add Maguire, Garfield, Dunst and Stone to the article? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Garfield and Dunst already have a hidden reference and currently hidden in the "Cast section" alongside Charlie Cox but Stone and Maguire are far fetched. That is from December, so things clearly changed, So I Oppose This. Dot (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. First off, the tweet author isn't verified so their info is questionable. Second, as stated its from December when the rumors were first circulating. Garfield has since denied involvement. Rusted AutoParts 19:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiverse Characters

On Homecoming’s Wikipedia page, the Sequels section has a brief summary of No Way Home, and Andrew Garfield is listed as reprising his role from The Amazing Spider-Man. If he is already listed as returning for No Way Home, should we add him to the article and use the Sequels summary for evidence? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Evidence: “In September 2019, Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures announced that they were set to produce a third film, after an impasse between the two companies during negotiations.[273] Watts returned to direct,[274] from a script by McKenna and Sommers.[275] Holland, Zendaya, Tomei, Batalon, and Revolori reprise their roles,[274] while Benedict Cumberbatch reprises his MCU role as Doctor Strange,[276] Jamie Foxx and Andrew Garfield reprise their roles as Electro and Peter Parker / Spider-Man from Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man films,[274][277] and Alfred Molina and Kirsten Dunst reprise their roles as Doctor Octopus and Mary Jane Watson from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy.[278][277] Spider-Man: No Way Home is scheduled to be released on December 17, 2021.[279]”

 Fixed. This shouldn't have been included there, because most reliable sources treated this as an unconfirmed rumor, and we've removed them until it's confirmed. —El Millo (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Collider

Regarding the Spider-Verse, is Collider a reliable source? This is because I want to add Garfield and Dunst to the article, but if Collider isn’t reliable, then I won’t. MarvelMovieFan (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Link: https://collider.com/spider-man-3-cast-doc-ock-alfred-molina-andrew-garfield/

Per numerous discussions about this, Collider has been generally deemed a reliable source, although other reliable sources have called Collider's report as rumor, so we mention its details in the article, but do not include Garfield or other actors in the cast list because of it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of Collider's articles are fan theories and rumors. So, I personally don't consider them a reliable source unless the article provides a solid explanation of how they got the information. Here the article just lists a bunch of actors, claiming they'll be back too if they close a deal... and their explanation for why the claim is Why? Because this third Spider-Man movie starring Tom Holland will delve into the multi-verse, just like its animated counterpart Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. I don't think that's a big secret at this point, so why do we pretend it is?. That's a fan theory or personal opinion, not a fact-checked news report. You need a better explanation like reputable sources do. For example, if it was THR or Deadline, they wouldn't just make a claim based on a theory. They would at the very least say something like "according to sources close to Production." — Starforce¹³ 13:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Collider is definitely reliable, they are not some fan site as Starforce suggests. The specifics of this report have been called into question, which does happen sometimes even for our most reliable sources, and we are waiting to see how it plays out, but I would not hesitate to add details from another Collider scoop to an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant Collider is reliable enough to be an acceptable source, but it's not to the standard that makes it a sufficient source on it's own. That's why I said it depends on if the article includes a solid explanation for their claim/source of information. If their explanation is "because they're doing multiverse and other actors are in it", that's nothing but a theory. But if they're reporting based on another article, an interview, an industry source, a social media post or video that can be used to double-check their accuracy, then that's good enough. So, you should take everything from them with a grain of salt. I apply the same criteria for similar sites like CBR, Comicbook.com, ScreenRant etc.— Starforce¹³ 20:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to start a whole "Collider reliability" discussion, I personally would put them below the trades, in line with a site like /Film, but above a CBR, Comicbook.com, and ScreenRant, given their editorial oversight, and who some of their writers/reporters are and their entertainment history. Plus they do get exclusive interviews/press junket access to report on what creatives have said. But from our last discussion on the matter at hand, I agree that in this specific instance, since no other site reported confirmation on the material beyond "H/t" Collider, it was best not to include the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an anomaly, in which info reported by Collider was treated as a rumor instead of as a reliable report by other outlets, both more and less reliable. I'd generally place it at the level of /Film as well. —El Millo (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

4th film

There are no sources at all saying a fourth film is in current development.... so saying so in the lead is simply incorrect.. User:Trailblazer101 claims that there was consensus about including it but when i look through the archives the only discussion about it [2] seems inconclusive at best with only one out of three editors seeming to back that position. His own edit said "for all we know"... which implies he doesn't know and no one knows if another film is in development. They had been planning one before the MCU deal was signed but that doesn't mean it is still on the schedule as no announcements about a fourth film have been made since that date which changed the plans for the franchise. One may happen at some point and they may be planning another film, but we don't know that and saying "A fourth Spider-Man film is in development" in the lead while the future section of the article simply says Holland "hoped to continue playing Spider-Man in the future if asked" which is far from definite. Unless some source claims a film is in actual development or the future section is better developed, including that in the lead seems unwise. Spanneraol (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a source saying a fourth film is in development. You are assuming that this is no longer the case, but we can't say that without a new source to support your position. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't have a source saying a fourth film is in development, you have a source saying a film WAS in development prior to the Marvel deal... That is far from the same thing. Wikipedia deals in factual information, and you are just assuming something that we have no actual evidence for. There is no reason to put something in the lead that can not be verified. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and the relevant section of the article does not say that... it is far less clear. Spanneraol (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a source saying a fourth film was in development, and we do not have a source saying it is no longer in development. We cannot say it is no longer in development based on your opinion, we need a new source to make that change. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You have an outdated source... Really you are only going by your opinion that it is still in development. To say something as a fact when there is no source saying it is still in development is simply a bad idea. My other point remains, it does not belong in the lead because the article does not say that and it is a disputed fact. You don't need to say it is not in development, it simply should not be mentioned at all. Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is it outdated? We have no source indicating that development on a fourth film ever stopped. —El Millo (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't remove information whenever an editor decides that it is outdated. Provide a source saying that it is and we can make the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need to be in the lead? That makes it seem like it is a fact, when it is not.... the third film may be the last of this cycle and they may reboot again... who knows? We have no source saying they plan to continue the Holland series after the third film.. There is no reason that something like this should be in the lead. Do you not understand what a lead is for? It is to summarize the body of the article and not all information needs to be included in the lead. This is a choice you are making, it doesn't matter if I have a source saying development stopped or not, there is no reason for it to be in the lead especially since the article quotes Holland as saying he is not signed for future films. At worst it should say "a fourth film was in development but Holland is not currently signed to be in it" which would be more accurate to what is in the body. Spanneraol (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty standard thing to have in the lead, and we have already established that it is a fact otherwise it would not be in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)