Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No sources

The lede and first two paragraphs cite no sources. Please remedy this. Josh a brewer (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The lede section is a summary of the article body, which is sourced. DonQuixote (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Though some of the info is unsourced. User:CreecregofLife wants to keep the unsourced info by edit warring, ignoring the page and the edit summaries, and writing nonsensical reasons and accusations. ภץאคгöร 18:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not an accurate description. Please stop your disruptive editing, considering you barged in on an unrelated conversation. I used the edit summaries properly, but you insist on claiming the information is baseless.--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

No Way Home has officially passed 1 billion becoming the largest movie of this year. I request an Edit on the protected page to change gross to 1 billion Ethicergy (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's projected to do so. It hasn't yet. —El Millo (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021 (2)

Change the Peter-Three into Peter-Two, where Doctor Octavius reconciles with Peter-Two in the film. 47.152.142.214 (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Admittedly it's a little confusing, but the "who" in that clause is describing Dillon. DonQuixote (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Made the passage a little clearer. DonQuixote (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Forbes reporting 1B mark has been reached

Link here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2021/12/25/box-office-spider-man-no-way-home-passes-1-billion/?sh=5dd8e15c46d9 B.Valley (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We’ve got Deadline too now--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Church & Ifans

This is already a discussion by someone else so I’ll repeat it, tom and Rhys are not confirmed to be returning, only their characters, and I’ll keep restoring my edit until y’all stop Redsuperman819 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would be edit-warring. Please stop this behavior or you may be blocked. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

But the information is wrong dumbass Redsuperman819 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PA, your arguments would be taken more seriously if you refrained from personal attack and insults. - Richiekim (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

😒 Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's take a step back and look at what we know.

• These are clearly the same incarnations of Sandman and Lizard from Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man, judging from the trailer and RSs. Also worth noting, Sandman is clearly using Thomas Haden Church's likeness.
• Entertainment Weekly and Variety (two of the highest quality sources in this field) refer to them as portrayed by Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans.
• We don't have a billing block yet. The closest we have is https://www.spidermannowayhome.movie/synopsis/, which doesn't list any of the villain actors. Molina, Foxx, and Dafoe have confirmed they're in it themselves/were confirmed by other crew members.
• RSs indicate that Church and Ifans reprise their roles but they do not have the level of confirmation that the others have.

I personally think there's enough to list Church and Ifans, but of course we should really try to come to a concrete consensus for now. JOEBRO64 19:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "RS" stand for? As to the Church/Ifans issue, I'm still don't think they should be included. I've previously mentioned how similar this is to teaser-trailer Willem Dafoe debate. Goblin's iconic laugh was heard in the trailer and people were quick to assume it was Dafoe, though there was no direct confirmation yet. Variety's article from August stated the following: "...will bring Holland together with villains of previous Spider-Man cinematic franchises. This includes Alfred Molina’s Doctor Octopus, Jamie Foxx’s Electro, and Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin." Molina and Foxx were already confirmed by the trades and the actors themselves, but no such confirmation on either front regarding Dafoe, despite the article using the actors' names as a preface, so to speak. No different for Variety and EW's article on the new trailer. Of course, now Dafoe is confirmed because Tom Holland expressly said so. As to the characters echoing the likeness of Church and Ifans, that's irrelevant. There's a solid possibility the characters won't be seen in their human form or speak (or if they do, voiced by the same actors). If Church and Ifans were part of No Way Home, high-quality sources like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood would have devoted a whole article to this information by now, like they almost always do with famous actors joining film and television projects. But here's the difficulty in that happening: let's say Church and Ifans are in the film and there are sources privy to this information that could easily and anonymously tell a reporter. That wouldn't happen because this is one of the most highly anticipated films in recent years and these outlets would not want to be in any more hot water with the studios desparately working to preserve the film's surprises. Same goes for Maguire, Garfield, and Charlie Cox. I'm sure plenty of Variety's handy sources know, but they would never publish it. By all accounts, the confirmation of Molina and Foxx were accidents. Molina disclosed information in a random interview and Foxx confirmed it in an Instagram post which he soon deleted. Forgive my idiom, but we only know limes, not lemons, so we shouldn't run with a lemon-juice edit without that concrete information. I don't understand why they must stay and I truly believe the counterarguments are running off of assumptions and faulty inductive reasoning. Snowshredder140 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.. there is no hurry to include them if we are not 100% sure the actors appear... and no RS have really confirmed them to that extent. The movie comes out soon enough, they should not be on there at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

RS refers to WP:RS, to answer that question. giftheck (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So the consensus continues to lean toward removing the actors. Should we wait a few more days before doing so? Perhaps until after Monday November 29th when tickets go on sale and a possible new trailer simultaneously releases with potential new info? We could also take this to the noticeboard. Snowshredder140 (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus definitely isn't leaning towards removal. Reliable sources state they are involved in the film, and per WP:VNT, they can be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

But this is not verifiable info. This is faulty inductive reasoning grounded in the idea that since these highly reliable sources are mentioning the characters by their actors' names alongside the confirmed villains, that it passes the bar for confirmation. We have no idea whether Variety, Entertainment Weekly, or Empire knows Church's or Ifans's involvement to be true and I don't think it wise to make generalizations or conclusions based on good faith and/or such unclear semantics. Snowshredder140 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, at least for me, that while this is very much at the same state Dafoe's involvement was when we had that original discussion, his confirmation somehow lowers the bar for how tight we need the confirmation to be. Virtually every reliable source is reporting Church and Ifans as confirmed, and now it seems enough. I remember some outlets had cast doubt into Dafoe's involvement after the laugh and before a more explicit confirmation, and these outlets aren't doubting Church and Ifans now. —El Millo (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, these aren't confirmations. It's a semantic misinterpretation because these sources are REFERRING to the characters by their unconfirmed previous actors' names in the same paragraph as the confirmed villains', without knowing if these sources actually know their return to be true. Their return may be probable per inductive reasoning, but anything truly verifiable has yet to emerge. Snowshredder140 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m seeing people saying that Ifans and Church’s scenes were reused and cut from their previous films for this film, gonna look out for a source on this. Rusted AutoParts 18:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I found a source, it’s on the IMDB page Of Spider-Man No Way Home - https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10872600/movieconnections/?ref_=tt_trv_cnn Redsuperman819 (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

IMDB is not reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Photos in the "Filming" section

Is it really necessary to have images of actors in the "Filming" section? Unlike the photos of Maguire and Garfield in the "Cast" section, there isn't even a photo caption mentioning anything from the production other than just "the actors reprised their roles". It also looks a little disorganized to have pictures of Rhys Ifans and Thomas Haden Church in a section called "Filming" when these two actors weren't even on the filming set (they just voiced Lizard and Sandman). They aren't even mentioned in any of the paragraphs of the section. So I suggest that all or at least some images are removed. The most ideal would be to add an image from the set of the film (example). YgorD3 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Though I think it should at least be case by case and not quite sweeping and all encompassing. Really depends on what we come upon. In thinking about it though, the images could be repurposed to be captioned about using their likenesses over the footage. But still, I agree.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

change "the performances (specifically Holland's, Dafoe's and Garfield's)" to the "the performances of the cast". Jammysood24 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — SirDot (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Box office controversy?

The film's B.O. performance appears to have caused a lot of disappointment for certain audiences that wanted films like West Side Story, Nightmare Alley and The King's Man to do just as well as this. Do you think we should have a section regarding this matter? It would really be important to show how this film not only saved the B.O., but also almost hurt the reputation of these titles, as well as negatively impact the future of films of other genres and small-large budgets this coming year (an example being, in the case of WSS, the musical genre), in addition to causing the notion that "unless your film is not MCU, DC, or a specific non-franchise action/horror film (save for other specific non-comic book IP and animated films), you will bomb." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HM2021 (talk • contribs)

It’s a rather trivial thing ultimately. The debate over blockbuster/franchise films harming the success of smaller productions extends beyond NWH and isn’t unique to just this film. Rusted AutoParts 05:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I removed it in the first place. If you’re busting a residential block (though I’m sure construction blocks are what the phrase initially intended), the block becomes less hospitable for others, right? Just seems like anger at blockbusters for being blockbusters combined with resentment toward superhero films.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, for this film, it is, because we're in a pandemic, and the age demographic going to non-superhero films, most of which are over the age of 35, isn't going back. It's because of that, that this situation is much worse than the last times these situations happened. That's why I thought it was important to include it. Does anyone agree films like WSS deserved better, even under Spider-Man's shadow, instead of everyone saving their money to over-buy tickets daily and weekly to only see NWH, when there are other things to see besides that, either before or after they see it? This is the state of the industry. Depressing. This film basically killed the musical, period drama, and awards-season genres. It's like the audiences want the notion of "you're not an MCU film, you bomb" to become the norm, which is very disappointing, and it appears that it's becoming so— Preceding unsigned comment added by HM2021 (talk • contribs)

But that’s not the film’s problem nor is it controversy. Also sign your comments going forward, not retroactively.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place to discuss personal opinions such as trying to find out who believes certain films "deserved" more money. Not to mention that you are basing this all on a big assumption, that if No Way Home did not come out then the people who watched it would have watched those other films. That doesn't mean there isn't room to discuss why this film made so much and those films did not, but your current line of thinking is not appropriate for this article or talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary excess information.

There's no reason to mention the number of places that showed the movie in IMAX. Just mention that it release in RealD 3D and IMAX. Remove the excess unnecessary information. StarHakimi (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You still have provided no source for the other formats, and the number of screens is it plays in is relevant, because the box office partly depends on the amount of screens a film plays in. —El Millo (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Another editor who repeatedly adds "RealD 3D" to the Release section of films without providing reliable sources, eh? Giving me flashbacks to this incident... InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you believe that I almost wrote "That was this year?” incredulously, just because it’s such a weird thing to happen twice…like I completely forgot we’re in 2022. Despite exposure to the new year in edit histories, signed comments, etc.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot copyedits

Since Buh6173 continues to edit war to revert plot copyedits without explaining why, I'm starting this discussion to outline the problems he keeps creating.

• Parker visits the Sanctum Sanctorum to ask Stephen Strange for help. Strange suggests... → Parker visits the Sanctum Sanctorum to ask for help from Stephen Strange, who suggests... This is needlessly wordier and turns the two sentences into one massive run-on that reads awkwardly.
  • A single word longer does not a "massive run-on sentence" make. If anything, keeping it at two sentences makes it more awkward by needlessly repeating "Strange" back to back. Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • A single word does make a run on sentence. "After Parker, MJ, and Leeds' MIT applications are rejected, Parker visits the Sanctum Sanctorum to ask for help from Stephen Strange, who suggests a spell that would make people forget Parker is Spider-Man" is a mouthful of a sentence, with three separate clauses that do not read smoothly when jumbled together. Splitting them into two makes them much easier, and more concise. JOEBRO64 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Parker argues that they should first cure their powers and insanity, since doing so... → Parker argues that they should first cure their powers and insanity, hoping that doing so... Not only is this less concise, it's explicitly established that curing the villains will prevent their deaths.
  • Is it? At most it's a theory that Peter suggests, it's not conclusively determined that "yup, this will stop them from dying". Also, again, one word longer. Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • "It's just one word!" is a complete death trap in copyediting. If the word doesn't add anything, we don't need it. It's as plain as that. I've changed it to something that I think we can both be happy with. JOEBRO64 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between "one unnecessary word" and "one necessary word". Don't put words (ha) in my mouth. "Just one word" IS worth it if it actually clarifies something, which it did in this case. Buh6173 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• They find "Peter-Two" and "Peter-Three", alternate versions of Parker who were summoned by Strange's spell. → They instead find two other versions of Parker who were also summoned by Strange's spell, dubbed "Peter-Two" (from Osborn, Octavius, and Marko's universe) and "Peter-Three" (from Connors and Dillon's universe). How on earth is this an improvement? Which universes the two Peters are from doesn't impact the reader's understanding of the plot. All that needs to be said is that they're other versions, since it's been established they're from alternate universes. Also, one principal rule of copyediting is to always avoid using "dubbed", "titled", "named", etc. when a simpler alternative exists.
  • Without the note of where they're from, it could be assumed that they're from a fourth and fifth universe apart from the villains. Taking the other movies out of the equation, it's important to keep these things straight. If "dubbed" annoys you that much then you're free to change it to "nicknamed" or something, but it also needs to be pointed out that that's not their actual names, simply nicknames Peter-One comes up with the for the sake of remembering them easier (which also helps our article). Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Without the note of where they're from, it could be assumed that they're from a fourth and fifth universe apart from the villains—except we never establish which universes the villains are from. If we don't establish where the villains are from, why should we establish where Tobey and Andrew are from? It's a unnecessary detail that doesn't need to be clarified in the plot. And "dubbed" isn't what annoys me; it's that the sentence can be restructured to remove the need for it entirely. And those not being their actual names and simply disambiguation is already addressed by the fact that they're established as alternate versions of Parker. JOEBRO64 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Not really. Devil's advocate, but an alternate Parker in some story might actually be called "Peter-Two". So yes, it's necessary. Buh6173 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• The three Parkers develop cures for the villains and lure Dillon, Marko, and Connors to the Statue of Liberty, where Peter-Two and Parker cure Marko and Connors. Octavius arrives to help and cures Dillon. → The three Parkers develop cures for the remaining villains and lure Dillon, Marko, and Connors to the Statue of Liberty, where Peter-Two and Parker cure Marko and Connors, respectively. Octavius arrives to help the Parkers and cures Dillon. "Remaining", "respectively", and "the Parkers" can all be removed without creating any ambiguity whatsoever.
  • If you want to remove "the Parkers", fine. But the others are a single word that help clarify. Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, the "single word" trap. JOEBRO64 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, a "single word" is worth it if it's actually significant. It's not a "trap". Cut it out. Buh6173 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Parker realizes the only way to protect the multiverse is to erase himself from everyone's memory and requests that Strange do so. Parker promises MJ and Ned that he will find them again. The spell is cast, returning everyone to their respective universes and wiping everyone's memory of Parker in his universe. → Parker realizes that the only way to protect the multiverse is to erase himself from everyone's memory and requests Strange to do so, while promising MJ and Ned that he will find them again. The spell is cast, returning everyone to their respective universes and wiping the memory of Parker from everyone in his universe. Again, all these edits do is create run-ons and make things needlessly wordy. Not to mention, "requests Strange to do so" is grammatically incorrect. Less is more when writing plot sections.
  • I don't recall making that grammar edit at the end of the sentence, but "requests that Strange do so" is fine. You forgot about "that" being removed, which in this case is grammatically correct so it needs to stay. "wiping the memory of Parker from everyone in his universe" is a more grammatically correct statement than "wiping everyone's memory of Parker in his universe". The memory is being wiped from people, the latter phrase could be misconstrued that "they remember the Parkers from other universes". Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Parker attempts to reintroduce himself to MJ and Ned, but finds himself unable to do so. → Parker later visits MJ and Ned to reintroduce himself, but decides against it, wanting to keep them safe. The film never makes it explicit that Peter's not reintroducing himself to keep MJ and Ned safe. It only shows that he tries to but ends up not going through with it. And "later" is unnecessary—we already know this comes after everything is reset.
  • I actually removed the "to keep them safe" bit, not sure how that ended up back in there. My last time cleaning that sentence, I left it as "Parker later visits MJ and Ned to reintroduce himself, but decides against it.", which should be fine. "Later" is necessary because otherwise it implies that he walked up to them right after the battle in the wreckage of the Statue of Liberty. Additional words might annoy you, but when one word can avoid reader confusion, it's worth it. Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • "Later" is not necessary since the amount of time that passes isn't important. What's important is that this happens after the battle—and "later" is already implied by the fact that (A) we cover this after the battle and (B) we use the word "reintroduce". Again, the "one word" trap. JOEBRO64 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, he could've just been "reintroducing" himself in the smoldering wreckage of the Statue of Liberty. The word helps explain the flow of time better. There's a time for conciseness, and a time to let something breath. Buh6173 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Specifying the Venom scene is a mid-credits scene is unnecessary. It's a film editing detail; WP:FILMPLOT explicitly says to "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." (Note that mentioning the "with great power" line is obviously an exception since it's a critical moment in the film.)
  • I'm ambivalent on the "Great power" line. I like it in the article, but I understand arguments for removing it. As far as the "mid-credits scene" thing goes, look at literally every other MCU movie's summary. That's just how these things are formatted. Deal with it. Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and MCU film articles shouldn't be exempt from WP:FILM policy. JOEBRO64 18:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Take that up on their articles, then, because by your logic, every single MCU movie is "breaking policy." Surprise, this is the new policy. If you can convince every single article to be changed, then good on ya. In the meantime, leave it be. Buh6173 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

        As an objective observer here, the weakest argument one can make is to say that something exists in other articles, and therefore, should not be challenged at one individual article. Consensus can vary between articles, even if it causes a break in consistency. With that said, other editors – particularly drive-by anonymous editors – will likely add it back seeing that the other MCU articles have it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

        I'm concerned that Marvel articles (and possibly superhero articles generally) seem to have spun out into their own mini-Wikipedia, where the usual standards of WP:FILM don't apply. For example, I agree 100% with JoeBro that the obsessive documenting of mid-credits-scenes etc is unencyclopedic and goes against the advice at WP:FILMPLOT. But if all 50,000 Marvel film articles contain the same problems - and I have certainly noticed some patterns myself - it becomes difficult to unpick, because the editors just point to other examples and say "this is standard". We may need to have a larger conversation about this. Popcornfud (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

        Agreed. If you decide to begin a discussion at WT:FILM over mid-credits in general, I'd participate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think you're actually checking to see what you keep reverting. JOEBRO64 17:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

+1 on all that. Popcornfud (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes added inline. Also, seeing how you yourself missed multiple additional edits when making these notes, maybe ask yourself if you're the one who needs to check what they're reverting. Also also, saying I'm "edit warring without explaining why" when you're literally doing the exact same thing (smashing that undo button with no explanation other than "muh version better", nuking additional minor fixes in the process), that's real cute. Buh6173 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I concede that I was edit warring, but I stated twice I was copyediting for the sake of clarity and concision. You repeatedly reverted without explanation, only saying you took issue with one change I made (removing "posthumously"). I also have no idea what the hell you mean by "[I] missed multiple additional edits"—the only other edits were not prose-related and just changed the paragraph structures. I'm going to ask that you remain WP:CIVIL as well. JOEBRO64 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I had to go back in and edit your "alteration" notes to point out things you missed, but little things (like grammatical "that's", or you failing to point out additional words being changed like "Strange" in the first example). Look closely, but it's there. As for me, I was responding to your unexplained reversions in kind. Cheeky and petty, I'll admit, but I have little patience for blanket undos that don't explain themselves and won't waste my time explaining why I'm undoing them. Buh6173 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The "that"s weren't strictly necessary so I didn't cover them here. They're not relevant to the larger point. JOEBRO64 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant that you were smashing the undo button without actually considering all of the consequences beyond "I like my version beter." Buh6173 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop saying that. I wasn't "smashing the undo button" because I just "like[d] my version beter". I was reverting you because I thought you were actively making the plot read worse and you were not explaining why, when I explained why I made my edits twice. JOEBRO64 13:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting that the copyedits I made brought the wordcount to 644, well below the 700 word limit. As it stands the plot is just barely below the wordcount at 698. JOEBRO64 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64, could you link to that diff here, so the comparison is easier? —El Millo (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo, no problem JOEBRO64 17:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I see some changes argued above have naturally reached different solutions already. —El Millo (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

After seeing this, I decided that I should probably get feedback on this plot draft before I add it to mainspace. It would be appreciated if anyone cared to review it. I noticed that there was a note saying to discuss edits first in the wikicode anyway. Thanks. JœRunner talk 23:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The only difference between your draft and the current one is separating the mid-credits scene from the rest of the summary, which I don't think is necessarily an improvement. The important information is already summarized pretty concisely in the current summary, and as previously stated specifying it's a mid-credits scene in the summary is a film editing detail, which goes against WP:FILMPLOT. (Also, single-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged around WP.) I'd like to note the current way the mid-credits scene is handled is just like the Avengers: Infinity War post-credits scene, where the information is grouped with the other characters disappearing. JOEBRO64 00:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

All good points. I did think there was some merit to having the scene in-paragraph, especially since WP:FILMPLOT talks about reordering scenes in chronological order. However, I couldn't find anything against denoting a mid-credits scene, and I will note that almost every MCU plot outline denotes them except for Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame. Look up pretty much any MCU movie and you'll see what I mean.

"The only difference between your draft and the current one is separating the mid-credits scene from the rest of the summary" is not quite correct, and yeah, that's definitely the biggest thing. But I also had some (objective) sentence structure and clarity edits that I would still like feedback on, since even though WP:BOLD is definitely still in effect here, I just didn't want stuff to turn into another argument. JœRunner talk 03:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@JœRunner: I've looked at it more in detail and I'd say my only issue with it remains the mid-credits scene. I looked into the Infinity War one and the consensus was that since it ties into the main plot of the film, it should be grouped with where it happens in terms of the plot. Like Infinity War, the Venom scene here is relevant to the main plot, so it doesn't make sense to separate it. The fact that it happens in the mid-credits doesn't really change anything. JOEBRO64 22:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Buh6173, knock it off. I did not "outright lie" when I said there is consensus—Popcornfud commented that he agreed with me on all points above, and both he and GoneIn60 agreed (with JœRunner disagreeing) that we do not need to specify the mid-credits scene's placement. Those are 2:1 and 3:2 ratios against you. Not to mention that more than one editor has reverted your continued addition of "posthumously" to the start of the synopsis, which is consensus through editing.

I've looked at your talk page and it you've been warned twice in the past for needlessly expanding plot summaries (here here). I really think you need to calm down, avoid treating Wikipedia like a battleground, and discuss. There is currently consensus against you. The onus is on you to convince others. JOEBRO64 04:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud commented before I made any of my rebuttals, which makes their comment little more than a "sure why not" (also it was a blanket comment as opposed to anything in particular). Also, "posthumously" has been added back by people other than me, so that point is moot. Also, me providing any synopsis on One Piece and you using that as "ammunition" against me is completely irrelevant, it'd be like saying Brexit is a bad decision because of the Revolutionary War. Completely unrelated, especially considering the fact that if your main takeaway from that was "made articles too long", my later edits on the Spider-Man article kept it under the 700 word limit. I've made my arguments, and as I've stated, others have restored a number of my edits, so it's not just me screaming against the world. For the remaining issues that I haven't conceded to compromises on, so far there have been no comments on. The only exception is the mid-credits scene which, again, if you want to make that a fight, figure out an overall rule for MCU articles. If you want to try to convince those articles to wholly switch to not mention mid-credit scenes then by all means. Just do that before messing with this. Buh6173 (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Not all MCU mid- and post-credits scene are the same, so not all of them should be treated the same. This mid-credits scene is very similar to the one from Infinity War, which is treated the same way. In it, Nick Fury and Maria Hill are shown to be dusted, taking place exactly as the same as the other people. Here, it's pretty much exactly the same: the mid-credits scene shows Eddie Brock be taken back to his own universe, at the same time as all the other villains and Spider-Men. So we actually have precedent in the MCU articles to treat this the way we are treating it. —El Millo (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, since this is apparently unclear, I think JoeBro's general approach to tightening the prose is good. I don't see the stuff Buh6173 is fighting for as necessary, and in some cases ("posthumously") it actively makes the summary more confusing, even if it's "more correct". Mentioning whether scenes are before, during or after credits is as pointless for plot summaries as constructions like "The film begins with..." or "The next scene shows...", etc, no matter how popular they are with fans. Happy holidays. Popcornfud (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Also for the record, the WP:ONUS to gain consensus is on the editor (or editors) seeking inclusion. You keep stating that the fight must be taken to all articles at once, but there is no such stipulation. I am not necessarily outright opposed to the idea of inclusion, but you're going to need a better argument. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, did everybody make up? Redsuperman819 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not. I conceded to a number of compromises, but JoeBro continues to revert changes without any kind of actual significant consensus, while also undoing other minor edits in the process (such as the Sanctum Sanctorum linking to the general page for New York for some reason? Explain that one, bud). JoeBro, if you insist on wrestling to the death over those last remaining changes, then feel free to do so in here. Because your argument of "I have the consensus on my side" is simply wrong. Cut it out. Buh6173 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I'm fucking done. That is not how consensus works, and there is clear consensus against you. You are just making things up to justify your continued edit warring and refusal to get the point. You do NOT force in your preferred changes against consensus. That's the epitome of disruptive editing. Please, stop. JOEBRO64 02:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And re: the Sanctum Sanctorum change—I didn't make that change, it doesn't matter because it's not what we're discussing, and it's honestly pointless since it goes to the exact same page. That's a non issue. JOEBRO64 03:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Buh6173 is right in that mentioning the universes of each alternate Parker wasn't addresses by anyone apart from the two of you, and it seems the "posthumously" wasn't either. So I'll give my opinion. On the "posthumously", I agree with JoeBro, it is unnecessary to this plot summary whether it was posthumous or not. Regarding the universes, we should only mention it if it is necessary for something included in the plot summary later on, which I haven't checked yet. —El Millo (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't specify which universes any of the villains come from, so saying Tobey and Andrew are from the universes of XYZ comes out of nowhere. It's not integral to understanding the plot, so I really don't think it adds anything. JOEBRO64 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've read it and it's not necessary to understand anything already included in the plot summary. So I'm in favor of not including it. —El Millo (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

By reinstating said Sanctum change (via a blanket undo, the think I've been constantly telling you to stop doing), you did, in effect, "make that change". That's what I mean when I say stop "slamming that undo button". Actually look where you're driving. Or editing, as it were.

If the "posthumous" thing annoys you that bad, feel free to make a vote of sorts. As I've stated, people other than me have reinstated it so it's not like I'm the only one in favor for it. In regards to where each Peter is from, it probably should be pointed out (either there or elsewhere) that the villains come from two universes total, because otherwise it could imply that each character is from a completely different universe, which would be confusing to the uninformed reader.. Buh6173 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The redirect to New York Sanctum is correct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "posthumous" thing, this has now been opposed by at least three editors... can we just drop that one now, please? Popcornfud (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, here's the thread on the plot edits. —El Millo (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really want to read through this huge wall of text, especially when it doesn't all seem to be relevant at first glance, but I will address the current edit warring here. The change that Buh6173 is trying to make seems very unnecessary to me as I do not see why explaining which universes each character belongs to helps with understanding the plot--it is never relevant to our summary afterwards. Looks like unnecessary duplication of information that is already well covered in the cast and production sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's not necessary for understanding the plot summary as we have it, as important as it may be emotionally and thematically when actually watching the film. —El Millo (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It is, in the very least, critical to point out that "Peter-Two" and "Peter-Three" are just nicknames, and that their names are still Peter Parker. Within the context of the summary, as you explained, there's no way of not having the reader assume their literal names are "Peter-Two" and "Peter-Three". Buh6173 (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about that then I would like to bring up the fact that it is very confusing to refer to "Peter-Two", "Peter-Three", and "Parker" in those couple of paragraphs. Is there a reason that we are not using "Peter-One" to differentiate him that I am missing? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That's also barely relevant. It's reasonable to assume, especially by having those two names in quotes, that "Peter-Two" and "Peter-Three" aren't their actual names. They are also linked to the actual characters. Even if you still consider it can be reasonably misinterpreted, we can have a footnote that clarifies it. Adding all that extra text is too much for this little possible misunderstanding, and most of it actually doesn't clarify that but adds other info. —El Millo (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Put it in a footnote if additional clarification is needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that, no, it is not reasonable to assume that those are nicknames. All it takes is an additional word of "nicknamed". One word abates potential confusion. The current edit is 43 characters longer than the previous one. If you're petty enough to think that those characters aren't worth the potential to avoid confusion, then...wow. Buh6173 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems the feeling in the crowd here is that there's little chance of potential confusion, so it's just not necessary. (It strikes me as odd to accuse others of pettiness for fighting over 43 characters when you're fighting over them too; by virtue of fighting for them, you're saying they do matter.) Popcornfud (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, but how do you know for sure? Personally I'd always say weigh on the side of least confusion, especially when it requires minimal effort. In the current edit, it's literally just the word "nicknamed". And is that one word being in there really worth such back and forth? Buh6173 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, if you go down the route of trying to anticipate and then cater for every possible confusion and ambiguity, you end up with a novel-length plot summary. What if readers don't know who Peter Parker is, or Quentin Beck? These things always require editorial judgement - all writing is a trade-off, at the end of the day. Popcornfud (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. And in this particular case, I would argue that the single word "nicknamed" has a net positive of confusion abating vs extensive detail. I'll concede on certain aspects (such as removing which universe each Peter is from), but the word "nicknamed" should be minimal enough that it doesn't cause that much editorial headache. Buh6173 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't seem like much of a problem to add that word. —El Millo (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the plot summary to before the edit warring began but kept the "nicknamed" in there. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

Sa234lem (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC) there are 3 main actors not writtin here

•  Not done Please use the format change "X" to "Y". Adakiko (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

New Andrew Garfield interview

He elaborates more on the brother approach he seems to have about his approach. Rusted AutoParts 02:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The brother approach about his approach…anyway yeah I think that could be worth a bit in the character bio--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

More on Green Goblin and Doc Ock

Here and here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

JK Simmons and Daredevil.

I do not understand why Simmons is not listed in the cast. If nothing else he has more lines than some who are. Also, Parker's lawyer is obviously Daredevil. That doesn't get a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3021:3907:B200:B986:D84E:9E2A:7E29 (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

First off, Simmons is in the second prose paragraph. Second, Cox only appears as Murdock and not the Daredevil persona--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cox only appears as Murdock and not the Daredevil persona" Ok as far as that goes, but I am referring to Simmons not being listed in the cast list, as opposed to the body of the text. Because he has as much screen time as he does and dialogue, that seems odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3021:3907:B200:B986:D84E:9E2A:7E29 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You might be right in that regard, let’s see what others say.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Those listed in the bullet points are those included in the film's main-on-end credits. Simmons is not included there. —El Millo (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfect reasoning. That solves that.--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Reinstatement of Accolades table

Can somebody reinstate the accolades table . I accidentally deleted the previous table when adding text.--MKL123 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the accolades table. Jolly1253 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Change india collection of Endgame to Infinity war(please refer to this article https://www.hindustantimes.com/hollywood/avengers-endgame-box-office-day-1-mcu-film-earns-a-spectacular-rs-52-cr-in-india-is-third-highest-opener-ever/story-0i8uIfHhBzirBvvO8RojdL.html) Change Jumanji welcome to the jungle sony highest release to Spiderman far from home(please refer to this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbean/2019/08/18/spider-man-far-from-home-becomes-sonys-highest-grossing-film-ever-with-11-billion/) Mayankrj007 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please edit this information which is more accurate. Mayankrj007 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding about the second source, it states that 'While Far From Home sits atop Sony's worldwide rankings, it still ranks third on the domestic list. Spider-Man still sits in the #2 position, earning $403.7 million back in 2002. And Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle stands atop the list with $404.5 million.' In the sentence(that I am assuming you are referring to), it states that 'It surpassed Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) to become Sony Pictures' highest-grossing film in North America.', which is in fact, correct. (To everyone that is reading this talk page, please correct me if I inferred 'domestic' wrongly. I am interpreting it as 'North America' as it is a Forbes article) Jolly1253 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the requester confuse Far From Home and No Way Home?--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt so. But I think the requester might have misread the source, as the title did suggest that Far From Home is Sony's highest grossing film. But if you read the article, it would have stated that it was for worldwide, and not domestically. Jolly1253 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless I am interpreting it wrongly. Jolly1253 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Marking as  Already done: It looks like the relevant information about being Sony's highest grosser and beating Endgame in India is already in the article(If I'm understanding the request correctly). SpinningCeres 00:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Change "Peter-One and Peter-Two cure Marko and Connors ..." to "Peter-One and Peter-Two cure Connors and Marko respectively ..." Skylander3112 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion above ended without re-adding 'respectively', so  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. SpinningCeres 01:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References to use

Here are some references to use in the article.
These sources are in progress.

• McClintock, Pamela (February 6, 2022). "Box Office Milestone: 'Spider-Man' Passing Up 'Avatar' Original Domestic Run". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved February 8, 2022.
• Goldsmith, Jill (February 3, 2022). "Lionsgate Execs Mostly Mum On Starz, STX Deals; Talk Series Vs Films On Streaming Platforms". Deadline. Retrieved February 8, 2022. A big film like Spider-Man: No Way Home, which will hit Starz sometime over the next six months, is a tremendous boost providing "you put the right shows and content around it so you can move customers that watch Spider-Man into one of your originals." {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |quote= at position 16 (help)

— SirDot (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Use them where?--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Correction request

No way home didn't break Endgame's opeaning day record in India. Please correct this in wiki page. 223.229.250.95 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

I want to edit Spider Man No Way Home a little. Can I please kindly do it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spideyfanforever (talk • contribs)

1. This isn’t the proper formatting for edit requests
2. You’re clearly new, so you don’t meet the requirements to be autoconfirmed. Go to some pages that don’t have any protection, make some constructive edits (the threshold is 10) and you should be autoconfirmed in about 4 days. Happy editing!--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Spider-Man 8" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spider-Man 8 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Spider-Man 9" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spider-Man 9 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Hans Zimmer did not score any Spider-Man movies. So the following should be corrected: Giacchino references themes from previous Spider-Man films by Hans Zimmer, James Horner, and Danny Elfman

to

Hans Zimmer did not score any Spider-Man movies. So the following should be corrected: Giacchino references themes from previous Spider-Man films by James Horner, and Danny Elfman

Original see below:

Music Main article: Spider-Man: No Way Home (soundtrack) In November 2020, Homecoming and Far From Home composer Michael Giacchino was confirmed to be returning for No Way Home.[134][135] The film's score album was released digitally on December 17, 2021, with a track titled "Arachnoverture" released as a single on December 9 and another titled "Exit Through the Lobby" released the following day.[136] Giacchino references themes from previous Spider-Man films by Hans Zimmer, James Horner, and Danny Elfman, as well as his own themes from Doctor Strange (2016).[137] Basco69 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Hans Zimmer composed The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and his Electro theme briefly appears in No Way Home. —El Millo (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Award

Spider-Man No Way Home won The Zeitgeist Award on March 23rd Y Sindy (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

First off, I don't know what it is, and second if it's not on Wikipedia as a notable entity it's not going to be listed CreecregofLife (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: I did a quick search and "The Zeitgeist Award" (whatever that is) does not have an article here. It's likely its not going to be included, though (or the user is making stuff up maybe). – SirDot (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Turns out it’s a category in the Casting Society Artios Awards, which does have a presence here. I just wish Sindy didn’t have us do their work for them CreecregofLife (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's a category. Made us think it was an award show. – SirDot (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I was thrown off too. But I can say that the information is already in the article. Didn't scour the history to see whether it was before or after Sindy's request CreecregofLife (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Shade

Y Sindy (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Plus Congrats on fixing it. I thought I was deranged. :) Y Sindy (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Change "who received sand-like abilities following an accident" to "who received/has an ability to transform into sand".

Sounds better. I mean, what is sand-like ability? What abilities do sand have? 182.1.95.1 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Done Indagate (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

Spelling mistake
paragraph location - Cast section → Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker / Spider-Man:
sentence - "McKenna and co-writer Erik Sommers credited director Jon Watts for coming up with the idea while they watched a pre-visualization reel showcasing ideas for the climatic battle"
the word "climatic" needs to be updated as "climactic"
o Meanings-
Climatic - relating to climate (ex:- "under certain climatic conditions, desert locusts increase in number")
Climactic - acting as a culmination or resolution to a series of events; forming an exciting climax.(ex:- "the film's climactic scenes")
112.134.17.114 (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. – SirDot (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

To link a separate main article List of accolades received by Spider-Man: No Way Home. 122.174.198.73 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Prose should be created to summarize the top awards of the film to replace the table here. I have hidden that table so editors can pull the refs/info/etc. to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Please add the following template to the page:

2601:241:300:B610:D80F:9308:353B:DFF7 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Liliana ^(UwU) 23:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating poster to the More Fun Stuff version

WP:FILMPOSTER says that the film's original theatrical release poster should be used. However, images should also accurately represent the article, or in our case the film, in question. Looking at all the previous posters that were not a character poster or format specific, all mainly focused just on Holland, Cumberbatch, and Zendaya as to not obviously spoil the film and extended cameos. The More Fun Stuff poster that was released this morning, in my opinion, is a better representative poster for the article, as it looks like your commonplace MCU "Photoshopped together" poster. Wanted to have this discussion first to gain a consensus to change it. Владлен Манилов already made a change, which I reverted, and I'd like them to weigh in here as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the poster being changed to that since it's technically a theatrical poster. -- Zoo (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Zoo. Just update the caption like I did to reflect the difference. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course, that would be done if the change is agreed upon. I think consensus will lead that way, but I don't want to rush back into restoring/changing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking years from now, general audiences and followers of this film will come to expect the poster with all the major characters to be the one used as it is the most representative of the contents of the picture itself. Timing of when a poster released does not necessarily make the theatrical poster the dominant one, so, I am for using the More Fun Stuff poster in the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Also agree on updating to the ass More Fun Stuff poster. — SirDot (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose switching to that poster, especially because it has the "wrong" release date and is not the actual theatrical release poster. If we were to go with the ensemble-style PhotoShop-mess posters for every project, we would have to change Captain Marvel (film), The Batman (film), Lightyear (film), etc. Not a good idea in my opinion.

Going on an OR tangent, it's clear that this poster artist was given instructions to basically stuff everyone in the poster, which is why minor characters like Matt Murdock and JJJ and Wong and Betty are on there. This isn't a good representation of the film overall, even though it has Tobey and Andrew. Also, the poster ratio is non-standard (standard Sony size, but not standard industry size). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Infinity War did the same thing with the stuffing of minor characters onto the poster. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly, Matt Murdock on this poster would be more akin to Thaddeus Ross or Nick Fury showing up on the Infinity War poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should just stick with the main poster like we normally do. It may have a few more actors on it, but it is subjective to say that this is more accurate to the film (I would argue that this poster is better and more accurate than the existing one and the new one) and I don't think we should set a precedent of changing the poster well after a film is released. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That is entirely fair, if I'm being honest. Would it be beneficial to include the poster if/once we have enough commentary on the extended cut in that section? Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

After doing some digging I found that FFH had a poster for its extended cut but that was never changed on here. So perhaps this is all moot. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the More Fun Stuff poster is being suggested because it has Tobey and Andrew, not because it's for a (cash crab) extended cut. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, we cannot allow this to set a precedent for other films with similar situations. As I mentioned, films like Captain Marvel and The Batman and Lightyear all have alternate/international posters which are ensemble-style. But those aren't the theatrical release posters, which is the standard on film articles. That guideline exists so we don't have to debate which poster to use every time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Another example: could we say this poster or this poster (if it were in English) is more representative of Endgame because it shows the Blipped characters who return in the final act? Certainly could be debatable ... but thanks to WP:FILMPOSTER, we don't need to. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that any released poster was fair game to consider, but given the reserved marketing for the film to hide who was appearing, I think this is a unique case and warranted considering the More Fun Stuff poster, as it is an official theatrical re-release poster that is within the style formatting of what we understand MCU posters to ultimately look like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a unique case, Endgame and Loki both concealed major characters in their pre-release marketing. But again, it'll set a precedent for other films, plus it has the wrong release date and wrong aspect ratio and all that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, what if we make this its own image in "Theatrical release"? That's not very common, but as I've included below, there is the commentary about it, specifically how it does the better job of including all the characters, so it would satisfy WP:NFCC. And I think it should be an uploaded image, not an external link, so viewers have it here to see and contrast against the actual release poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this, strongly oppose changing the infobox image to the More Fun Stuff version, per adamstom's arguments, the wrong release date, the bad precedent it could set, the fact that we've never done that before. We don't subjectively decide which poster is more representative, we go with the theatrical release poster (from its original theatrical run) for consistency and simplicity. —El Millo (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

He means putting it as its own image in the Theatrical release section. Someone added it before there but it was then removed. I think that is a better option then changing the infobox. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Facu's comment was meant to be above mine about putting it in the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to include it in the release section with the below commentary. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The placement of my comment is correct, I agree with what Favre said about putting the More Fun Stuff poster under Theatrical release while keeping the original theatrical release poster as the infobox image. —El Millo (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I read "Agree with this, strongly oppose" as the "this" meaning putting it in the infobox. @ZooBlazer, Trailblazer101, SirDot, and InfiniteNexus: what do y'all feel about add it to the "Release" section, with the below (and any additional) commentary? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

After keeping an eye on the conversation over the last couple days, I think that would probably be the better choice compared to changing the infobox poster -- Zoo (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I would support including the poster in "Release" over the infobox as long as it was included with the mentioned commentary and any others. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. Marvel.com finally posted the poster with a standard size and higher resolution, so we should be using that version. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's probably the best option. — SirDot (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, I'm going to make these additions, based on everyone's comments and agreement to move forward with it being featured in the Release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Commentary on this poster

If anyone is curious, here's what's being said about this poster:

• Collider - The poster is a refreshing change from the movie’s previous promotional material that left out many big players in order to minimize spoilers and maintain a better viewing experience for average fans. The Avengers-style poster is a perfect blend of the multiverse feels, combined with the "Where's Waldo" effect.
• MovieWeb - the time has finally come for Marvel to give fans the epic poster that have been calling out for featuring all the main players from the movie, including all three Spider-Men, four villains and even Charlie Cox’s Matt Murdock
• GameRant - not really any direct quotes to pull, but discussing how the three Spider-Men are featured, among the other characters, after the previous posters only used Holland's Spider-Man
• ComicBook.com - The poster We've All Been Waiting For, as well as This is a big change in the way [Sony] initially promoted the movie. Long after almost every big cameo had been spoiled online, they continued to play coy about who was in it

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ms Marvel character in No Way Home

Damage Control Agent Deever from Ms. Marvel appears in the film https://thedirect.com/article/spider-man-no-way-home-ms-marvel-character 170.239.28.58 (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's noted on the Ms. Marvel article that he appeared in NWH, but there's no need to add it to this article. -- Zoo (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about Alysia Reiner's Agent Deever NOT Arian Moayed's Agent Cleary. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The Direct is not considered a reliable source, and I haven't seen any reliable sources report on this. If they do, we can add it. —El Millo (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You can see the pictures 170.239.28.58 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We still need a reliable source. —El Millo (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As noted at the actors list, this is barely an appearance and not one I think we can even consider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's considerable since she reappears in a series, it's not a one-time minor character. What makes her appearance different from the character of Gary Weeks, who barely appears in the film? I think both are notable for being characters who previously appeared in another film/reappears in another project 170.239.28.58 (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source thinks it's notable, then it'll add more weight. DonQuixote (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a nearly-indiscernible reflection that's more of an Easter egg. Much like how Hulk was apparently in Hawkeye, but only if you look reeeally closely. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not the same, the Hulk in Hawkeye is a VFX addition barely visible from a distance, with Mark Ruffalo clearly not involved. In this case, you can see Reiner's face even if it's a reflection. 170.239.28.58 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Instead of trying to convince people that it's notable, it'll be better to cite reliable sources showing that it's notable. DonQuixote (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should include it if we had reliable source coverage, but we don't have any actual coverage by reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Post by the actress herself confirmed she was in the film: https://www.instagram.com/p/ChdEfg1PgDD/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= 186.111.139.54 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's listening here to the important part: Anyone can say anything about whether somebody or other did or did not make an appearance in projects X, Y, and Z. That includes the actor himself or herself. The key crux of the issue is that we need a WP:RS to verify that the information is in fact correct and accurate. Not one of you who are in favor of including this information here have noted such a source. We can go around in circles all day, but it would be counterprodutive to do so. So, open challenge to any or all of you who are insisting that the information is accurate and should be included here: Cite one source, just one, that meets the standards for both reliable sourcing and significant coverage, indicating the actress did indeed have a role in this movie. If you'll pardon the usage of a familiar expression: it's high time to put up or shut up. Cite one source verifying the information that would meet the standards of inclusion in articles about the MCU, or Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The back-and-forth has gone on long enough, in my view. Jgstokes (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow why so angry? So now an actor himself who was in the film is not a reliable source? How? 186.111.139.54 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Twitter is sometimes used as a source.

So, here's a tweet from Reiner stating she was in No Way Home: https://twitter.com/alysiareiner/status/1556780274935021574?cxt=HHwWjICyja7a5ZorAAAA 186.111.139.54 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not about it being true, it's about it being notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You need to cite reliable sources stating that this is notable in any way whatsoever. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

so what about Gary Weeks' character? He's barely in the film, is his appearance notable? Because he's included in the article. 186.111.139.54 (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

From the article:

Russell, Bradley (March 25, 2022). "Spider-Man: No Way Home includes one more hidden MCU cameo that you might have missed". Total Film. GamesRadar+. Archived from the original on March 25, 2022. Retrieved March 25, 2022.

DonQuixote (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well it's notable because she is a character who appears in a later project (Ms. Marvel) in a major role and not just a simple one-time nameless character from the film. 186.111.139.54 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

As I've said above, instead of trying to convince people that it's notable, it'll be better to cite reliable sources showing that it's notable--mainly because some random person on the internet (including myself) isn't much of a source, reliable or otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

So are we just going to ignore that her character first appeared in this film before her major role in Ms. Marvel? Even when the actress herself confirmed she was in the film? 186.111.139.54 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You can post it on your own blog or fansite or whatever. Wikipedia is a place where you cite and summarise reliable sources--it's basically a glorified term paper. If you can't cite a source, then it doesn't belong here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The actress herself confirmed it was her in the film. What other source do you need? I understand if we only had a reddit post or an article by The Direct, but Reiner herself is confirming it. So, you are deciding to ignore a fact. 186.111.139.54 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

A source stating that it's in any way notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. DonQuixote (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

ok, continue ignoring the fact she appeared in the film. So this article is a lie because it doesn't include her appearence, the Ms. Marvel TV show article is a lie because there's no mention she is reprising her role instead of first appearing in the show, and the MCU actors article is a lie because it doesn't state she was introduced in No Way Home. 186.111.139.54 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

...or it's just uninteresting trivia that isn't that important for a general encyclopaedia. You can always compile and publish your own fan encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

it's not a fan thing. It's a fact. She was in the film. You're deciding to ignore it. 186.111.139.54 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding why we're asking for a source. We don't need a source that proves she was in the film (we have that), we need a source that proves her cameo is notable/noteworthy to be mentioned (we don't have that). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

that doesn't make sense at all. She was in the film. So, why we need a separate source saying she should be included? 186.111.139.54 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No secondary reliable sources have mentioned the fact of her appearance in the reflection, none that I could find anyway. If you can find secondary reliable sources that talk about it, then we can consider inclusion. —El Millo (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that she appears in a later MCU project in a major role? Given the interconnectivity of the shared universe. 186.111.139.54 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems WP:UNDUE if it's a cameo so small that it's not only hard to spot but hard to see, no longer than two seconds in a reflection, and no secondary reliable sources have talked about it. —El Millo (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If there was a source explaining her casting (i.e. was she cast for the show and included in the film but ended up being barely visible? Or did they decide to bring her back for the show even though her role in the film was mostly cut?) then including that would probably be noteworthy, but for now I agree that it would be WP:UNDUE. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

add name to infobox: 24.250.63.221 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022 (2)

add name to infobox: Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

| name = Spider-Man: No Way Home Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Undone Removed as the infobox handles this automatically. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In the plot, should we include the part where Andrew saves MJ?

The part where Andrew saves MJ is an extremely touching and symbolic moment in my opinion Dangervest69 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't about being touching or symbolic, it's about being relevant to the basic understanding of the plot, that moment doesn't seem to be. —El Millo (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

not on Disney Plus. notable? edit request

Verifiable by signing in on disneyplus.com and using the search function or by phoning their customer support line.

Please consider adding this to the Home media section:

Although Disney Plus allows subscribers to watch "much of the Marvel Cinematic Universe", Spider-Man: No Way Home is not included, even though newer MCU films (such as Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness) are available.

Thank you. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It is already explained in the "Home media" section that Disney has a deal to stream Sony titles, including No Way Home, after its run on Netflix. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, sort of. i thought "Sony's legacy content" just meant the films that originally had Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man, not any MCU stuff. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Starring order?

Benedict cumbertacth is in second not zendaya. Based on evidence shows poster with characters size reflecting the importance.2404:8000:1027:85F6:109A:5AA:7E5E:48DA (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Order is based on the film's main on end credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

would rather go with home media releases cause the it's easier to do the cast order there than end credits. Cosmic2992 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST, we generally match the end credits order. Millahnna (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The film's main on-end credits are easily verifiable to anyone who has seen the film or owns it now on home media. The credits used in the film far outweigh the prerelease poster ones, which many times exclude actors (at least in the MCU) for the sake of not spoiling their inclusion. WP:MCUFILMCAST discusses this and its relation to the larger FILMCAST. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Future section

According to the actor Vincent D’Onofrio his character Wilson Fisk/Kingpin will face Spider-Man eventually in the link here should that be included in the future section? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's just something he said he's expressed interest in for a while now and believes his character would defeat Spidey. He didn't confirm that any plans for such an encounter would happen, let alone for another Spidey film. There's been online chatter about these characters facing off for years, which has recently gained traction, but none of it has been notable or verified for inclusion here at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just asking is all. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

And I responded with why it shouldn't be included... I wasn't being rude, just direct and explanatory. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Change "generally positive reviews" to positive reviews Alvinpippopmanperson (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, no reason provided for requested change. —El Millo (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Future

Amy Pascal and Tom Holland have recently given some updates on the next Spider-Man film, which I think should be added to the article. 103.21.166.17 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

174.196.140.199 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding Distribution Company’s That Distributed The Film.

 Not done Request Unclear WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)