Misplaced Pages

Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:08, 25 December 2021 editDonQuixote (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,507 edits →No sources: r← Previous edit Revision as of 18:28, 25 December 2021 edit undoNyxaros (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions17,602 edits →No sources: +Next edit →
Line 465: Line 465:
The lede and first two paragraphs cite no sources. Please remedy this. ] (]) 15:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC) The lede and first two paragraphs cite no sources. Please remedy this. ] (]) 15:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
:The lede section is a summary of the article body, which is sourced. ] (]) 16:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC) :The lede section is a summary of the article body, which is sourced. ] (]) 16:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
::Though some of the info is unsourced. User:CreecregofLife wants to keep them by edit warring, ignoring the page and the edit summaries and writing nonsensical reasons and accusations. ] 18:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:28, 25 December 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spider-Man: No Way Home article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComics: Marvel / Spider-Man / Films Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Related work groups:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Spider-Man work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Comic book films work group.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm: Comic book / Marvel Cinematic Universe / American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

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)

Billing block

The new poster doesn't include a billing block. The only thing we have for the cast is the order in the SpiderManMovie and Sony Pictures websites, which excludes Dafoe, Molina, Foxx, Chruch, and Ifans. What we do? AxGRvS (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I say we work off of Sony Pictures' cast order until the film releases and we see the onscreen credits. Snowshredder140 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree but I did that and my edit was reverted AxGRvS (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We go by the poster billing block, it's likely that soon a version of the poster with a billing block will appear. There's WP:NORUSH to change the approach. —El Millo (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious for this film since they are trying their best to hold back actor appearances, if they will not release a poster with a billing block until after the opening day of the film? That would be a bit unheard of, but I think a possibility. While it is still likely we'll get a final final poster between now and the 17th, should we not, we should used the order in the titles/main on end of the film (with caution given to any actors appearing in a grouping ie their name is not the only one appearing on the screen at that moment ). And then finally, way down the line, the physical media of the film can be used to determine a billing if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I've many times seen a final poster without a billing block be later released with a billing block. Same art, basically the same poster, except for the billing block being added. —El Millo (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
With all this uncertainty, maybe we shouldn't assume that this is the theatrical release poster and just call it a promotional poster instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
With the recent "Return of the Villains" video it seems the billing block is Holland, Zendaya, Cumberbatch, Batalon, Favreau, and Tomei, just like the film's official websites AxGRvS (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Guys, we have a billing block, taken outside the premiere event (by a verified reporter). If you zoom into the second image, it looks like they're using the same billing order as the one on the NWH site. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's still on the teaser poster, and as we've discussed, there will probably be an updated one post-release, but this is a start. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
That's actually a brand new poster. But they're doing a bang up graphics arts job between all these different posters with the same poses its hard to keep them all straight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire

Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire should be added as featured actors in this film. I've seen 3 Spidermen in multiple trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:1:8DC:49EF:AAB5:8385:61A1 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are unsourced rumors, please see the plethora of past discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those rumors are proven true as shown in these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1-L5Q0ov80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAq-RcF8n8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JQJ32-LYfg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:1:D5C:A138:EAE4:3DFA:A761 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are, embarrassingly fake. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We don’t include actors in credits unless there are reliable, independent sources to support inclusion. To this point, there are none, only rumors. Spf121188 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. They will not appear in the credits unless official verified sources confirm, or their names appear in the credits of the actual movie. We will know in a few short days whether they are even in the movie or not AlienChex (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Credits from today's premiere just confirmed that Tobey Maguire is in the movie. Premiere Credits leak: https://twitter.com/Moth_Culture/status/1470642070045999106
I can confirm that both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield are in the film. SwanX1 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I can also confirm that Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield reprise their respective roles as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. 2600:6C5D:0:A41:31C1:50D1:6682:F5D6 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This soon after release, we should not be adding Tobey and Andrew to the featured actors section or the introduction paragraph to protect those who have not yet seen the film and may just be looking for information such as runtime, box office performance, and critical reception. Totalgraduater (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

MJ's credit:

I think MJ needs to be credited as Michelle "MJ" Jones, as that's her name Advofspec (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

She should be credited as MJ as that is what the credits say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages mirrors all official credits from billing order to credited name. AlienChex (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No Way Home Spoliers

When will No Way Home Spoliers be added to this page, for example in the case that Tobey Maguire showed up in No Way Home, when would he be added to the wikipedia? On the 17th or after? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisrussian (talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the 16th as it'll be in general release by Thursday evening. DonQuixote (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't particularly bothered by spoilers as people visiting this page anytime after today are likely looking for plot leaks. The plot will go up whenever someone who has seen the movie writes one up, but most will be extremely unverified until the 17th. AlienChex (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
In the UK it is on 15th by the way. Mike210381 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who have watched the film can add the film's plot (as per WP:SPOILER) but make sure that it is correct as to avoid the repeat of what happened to Eternals when someone added a fake plot and got called out by media. Centcom08 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Editors: Jeffrey Ford and Leigh Folsom Boyd. It says so on the poster (by a verified source): https://twitter.com/BrandonDavisBD/status/1470439136691515396/photo/2 98.5.41.204 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That tweet is not a reliable source, and the poster is far too small to make out clearly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Tobey Maguire Confirmed

Credits from today's premiere just confirmed that Tobey Maguire is in the movie. Premiere Credits leak: https://twitter.com/Moth_Culture/status/1470642070045999106 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We need a reliable source since Twitter is considered a self-published source, which is not acceptable (as per WP:SELFPUBLISH Centcom08 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Ironic. Even Misplaced Pages is a self-publish source. Guess even Misplaced Pages is unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 15:56, December 14, 2021 (UTC)
Which is why we don't cite other wikipedia articles as reliable sources. Spanneraol (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers

No 'No Way Home' Spoilers

Here's a request to Misplaced Pages editors. Can you kindly not leak or spoil anything for atleast 5 days after the movie has been released. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.37.114 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. If you don't want spoilers, don't visit Misplaced Pages pages. 2405:205:C909:A238:648A:9BDF:B86B:EF96 (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Where does it say how Misplaced Pages works? Where does it say that Misplaced Pages has to post spoilers on the day of the movie release? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.171.194.61 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Kindly read WP:SPOILER. Anyone who watched the film starting today can post it on the article. Centcom08 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The article WP:SPOILER doesn't mention when spoilers can be added to an article. So it conflicts with your words "who watched the film starting today". You might need to re-read the article once again before you refer it to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.171.194.61 (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming the unsigned comments are all the anonymous user who has not signed their comments, but as per WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." It does not matter who has seen the film or when. The things in the article have been reported on by sources that are reliable for this subject. Ergo, it is not acceptable to remove them. I would wager that the full plot will appear tomorrow, when the film starts releasing to general audiences and it's easier to write a proper plot section. If you don't want to be spoiled, it's best to stay away from this article. giftheck (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please No Spoilers

Please don't spoil the film please. For example, if Batman appears in No Way Home, I want to be surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Sucks for people who want to go in blind, but then maybe don't read the Misplaced Pages article.giftheck (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Stick to Fandom wikis. Don't read Misplaced Pages. 2806:265:40A:B644:E4ED:38EA:6081:CD6 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't Spoil No Way Home

Spider-Man: No Way Home official sources have officially warned not to spoil the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This and this  ? --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Those warnings were directed towards social media platforms, and unless something changed in the last week, Misplaced Pages is not a social media platform. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_social_networking_site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
That's an essay. (CC) Tbhotch 03:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey dumbass stop spoiling No Way Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER. We only care about reliable sources, spoilers are not our concern here. Spanneraol (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
They also have Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site too, which serves as a counterpoint. Regardless, WP:SPOILER is at play here. giftheck (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Maguire and Garfield

Someone removed them from the page. Should they go back on? FaithfulDog1 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No, their appearance in the movie is not yet confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes they are confirmed. . Spanneraol (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
They are confirmed, but putting them back is a bad idea. It can spoil the movie to readers. Maybe put it in after a week. HARded2000 (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@HARded2000 You have a point there. 103.146.225.217 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Make sure to keep an eye on Spanneraol for around a week. Undo any spoilers he puts in until the week ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxyofh4rd (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The Spanneraol guy did it again. He posted spoilers. What a jerk. 103.146.225.217 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
We should probably report him. It seems like he's using his high reputation just to ruin stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxyofh4rd (talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
He just replied.

"We are an encyclopedia, we don't have deal with protecting spoilers here. Spanneraol (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." So, if you hate spoilers, then GET OUT of the page for Spider-Man: No Way Home! LancedSoul (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxyofh4rd (talk • contribs)

These Misplaced Pages editors do not deserve good things.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Report for what? You are the guys violating wikipedia policy, not me. "High reputation"?? LOL Spanneraol (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I've already reported this IP to the admins. Best leave this discussion alone for a while, and contribute to discussions above about this subject of spoilers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fan Service

Idk shouldn't it redirect to the "Fan Service" page lol 50.29.156.117 (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

at the end MJ and Ned don’t know who he is 2603:9000:7007:FFF3:C1DD:55AE:A1E:9FF0 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot Summary?

I can't find anything on WP:FILMPLOT about when is the appropriate time to write a plot summary, but it appears that the summary that some editors are trying to put on the page is highly inaccurate to the film and written by someone who has not been to the premiere. Should we allow it to be on or would it be in the best interest to revert anyone trying to add a summary until the wide release on Friday? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The plot in general is an uncomfortable read, it's gotten better over the last few edits but lots of sentences are still broken, its going into details it should be going into. However, at this point it needs more fixing rather than being removed altogether. We should probably also figure out a better way to distinct which Peter/Spider-Man the plot is talking about. --YannickFran (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes the different Peters is very confusing in the plot summary and also the writer keeps switching randomly between "Peter" and "Parker"... pick one and stick with it... definitely needs a re-write to fix these issues. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph has "In the ensuring battle, May is critically injured by the Goblin", which doesn't make any sense. It needs to be changed from "ensuring battle" to "ensuing battle". 124.37.83.250 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Cox cast mention

The mention of Charlie Cox has a bunch of writing mistakes and missing words. Somebody fluent in English who can do so should give it a once over. XeCyranium (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Queensboro Bridge?

Just came back from the movie. Doctor Octopus vs Spider-man takes place at the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. I tracked it down based on the road signs.

Though I do recognise the queensboro bridge as appearing in the Movie.

What do we think? 2A02:C7C:340E:E200:A530:E5FF:992C:F845 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how this relates to the Misplaced Pages page, but yes, it looked like it. Did you think it should be mentioned? I don't think it's of any relevance. SwanX1 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit

Can someone who isn't an idiot and understands grammar update the plot synopsis, please? 108.183.6.8 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Spell plot point

After the spell is cast Parker didn’t assume it had worked. Strange finds out Peter didn’t call MIT to challenge the rejections and berates him for asking for a spell first. 31.124.31.219 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I did that an hour-or-so ago. I did not see your talk page post at first, so I'm only replying now. SwanX1 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can i have edit access please Tuandinhminh1234 (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Where should the post-credits scene be?

It's currently added at the end of the plot section, however it doesn't tie into any other part of the movie, because it's a teaser trailer for the DSMOM movie. SwanX1 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the post-credits scene has been removed by Noelephant SwanX1 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
It was removed because it doesn't belong there. The sentence itself even included why it isn't relevant. It's a "teaser trailer", that is by definition not part of the movie. --YannickFran (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledge that, however it still is relevant as it is a post-credits scene in the movie. I'm not saying it should be under the plot, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere, I am not sure where. SwanX1 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not a scene, it's a trailer. It's standalone--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Update: I looked at the Captain America TFA page for any sort of precedent the site may have set with the Avengers teaser trailer. What I found is that it's mentioned in the Theatrical subsection of the Release section, however I don't know how much weight of its mention is due to the apparent leak of said trailer at the time.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Referring to Ned as Leeds in plot

Unlike writing for real people, there's absolutely no policy or guidelines dictating to refer to fictional characters by their last names. For characters like Peter Parker, who is frequently referred to by his full name, it makes sense to use Parker in the plot. However, Ned's last name is only very briefly mentioned in the film. It is not even mentioned in the early films. There is no reason to refer to him as Leeds in the plot summary. Calling him Ned is less confusing and it makes this article consistent with other articles mentioning the character. Therefore, I am going to change it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Every other character is referred to by last name. Either be consistent, or change Parker to Peter, Octavius to Otto, etc. Buh6173 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. MJ is referred to as MJ and May is referred to as May and the other Peters are referred to as Peter-Two and Peter-Three in the plot. I don't really care if we use Parker or Peter for Spider-Man as both names make sense, but Leeds makes no sense for Ned as he is only referred to as Ned and his last name wasn't even mentioned in any of the other names, it's really more of an Easter egg then anything, just like how MJ's last name is revealed to be Watson. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Easter eggs can still provide important information and the use is still valid--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That is not at all the point. Leeds can absolutely be included in the article, it just does not make any sense to call him that instead of just using Ned. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I think a mix is appropriate depending on the context, but yes, such a heavy imbalance in favor of formality is very bizarre and it shouldn’t be that way--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
JDDJS Why are you so obsessed with this? AxGRvS (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
In this case, "Ned" is clearly the common name above "Leeds", so "Ned" should be used, as "MJ" is used instead of "Jones-Watson". —El Millo (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC

What should Ned Leeds be referred to as in the plot? Note the above conversation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Ned as stated above, there's no policy reason to refer to him as Leeds. As his last name is never even used in the previous films and only briefly spoken in this film, it can be confusing using Leeds. Media refers to the character as "Ned Leeds" and just "Ned" but almost never just Leeds. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ned as the clear common name for this character throughout the films, also logically consistent with how we refer to the character MJ by her common name instead of by her last name, also only briefly spoken and rather recently revealed. —El Millo (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ned, because it’s both the common name for the character and the only name he's referred to throughout the film. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ned Common name, and he's not some authority figure or agent that would need such formality. Best you'd get is maybe an attendance call out, but he also had no scenes at school in the film so yeah, it's clear--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ned leeds calls other Peter parker

Actually he doesn't summon them from another universe he does summon them from other places in same universe as Andrew mentioned it that's came yesterday and roamed streets and knew that this not my universe" so they already came when the spell happend. So, It must be changed to this Ned leeds not had powers to summon them from another universe and its not possible in mcu. 2409:4072:20C:DB4D:0:0:152F:70B1 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Men

Will it be better if the two other Spider-Men were given their actors so that there will be no confusion? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In the film, they referred to each other as Peter One (Holland), Peter Two (Maguire), Peter Three (Garfield). — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 03:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

including of Sandman and Lizard

so it appears the actors were not on set and were providing their voices, with footage of them being recycled footage from Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. 2600:6C5D:0:A41:31C1:50D1:6682:F5D6 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You have no source and it honestly sounds like you got rumors and havent actually seen the movie--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that the footage was reused and they only did the voice but we would need a reliable source to confirm that before putting it in the article. I'm sure once the film has been out for a bit there will be news articles or interviews that will cover that. Rhino131 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Creecregolife keep your dreams in your head then I guess? I've seen the film and they're literally CGI characters with the voices from the original actors then once they're cured they "revert" back to their human forms and it's reused footage.. 2600:1004:B12C:DC6D:79CD:FD53:7357:98A2 (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I found a source it’s the IMDb page of Spider-Man No Way Home- https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10872600/movieconnections/?ref_=tt_trv_cnn Redsuperman819 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Redsuperman819 WP:CITINGIMDB. -- /Alex/21 03:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone verify this? 2600:1005:B008:70CD:5C41:E8F2:F610:1386 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The footage is definitely archive footage. I found an Inverse article (which to my understanding is a reliable source) discussing it, so I think it can be added. JOEBRO64 19:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
awesome, @JoeBro64 2600:1004:B114:F7A7:FC4F:591A:D949:AFC4 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Track listing

As I am trying as hard as possible to avoid spoilers, could someone please add in the track listing of the score as detailed here? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but need to fill "total length". — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 05:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to remove andrew and tobeys name from that because it's spoiling the fun. 122.177.106.44 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Spoiler. Misplaced Pages has no reason to care for spoilers--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence of this article makes no grammatical sense

Hello again, everyone! The opening sentence in this article uses confusing phrasing and is not well-formed grammatically. Let me quote the part of the first sentence of the plot summary that is problematic, then detail why it is confusing and not well-formed. The beginning of the article states: "Following Quentin Beck / Mysterio's framing of murder and relevance of his identity to the world, Peter Parker, his aunt May, MJ and Ned Leeds are interrogated due to Mysterio's actions, but all charges are dropped due to lawyer Matt Murdock." My understanding of policies relating to movies in genral and sequels to other movies in particular is that the plot desription shouldn't assume on behalf of those reading the article that they will automatically understand this movie is picking up where the last one left off. "Mysterio's framing of murder and relevanve of his identity to the world" is also problematic, because it fails to convey the fact of who Mysterio is framing and why. There's nothing in that phrasing to indicate the sentence refers to Peter Parker. Also, the definition of the wod "relevance" is "the quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate." I think what was meant to be conveyed is that Mysterio framed Spider-Man for his (Mysterio's) murder, and revealed his identity as Peter Parker to to the world. As currently written, the context is not clear, and the grammar (or in this case the lack thereof) is both atrocious and inappropriate. Moving on, the sentence fails to explain why MJ, Ned, and Aunt May Parker were interrogated as the result of Mysterio's accusations. Are they supposedly complict or accomplices to or accessories of Peter's alleged "crimes" in this matter? If so, why is that the case? "All charges are dropped due to lawyer Matt Murdock" does nothing to indicate who Matt Murdock is or what he did on behalf of Ned, Peter, MJ and Aunt May that led to the charges being dropped. A lot of this wording is problematic because it presupposes the average reader will understand what the wording thereof means. I'm not suggesting in any way that this sentence needs to be "dumbed down". To the contrary: I am suggesting that the sentence should be "smartened up" to eliminate confusing wording and to clarify the meaning and context. Maybe this is an overanalysis on my part, but I can say that in my 15 years as a Misplaced Pages editor, that is the most confusing and poorly-formed phrasing of a sentence I've ever comr across here. No context, incorrect phrasing, and grammatically atrocious structure. I'd welcome any changs anyone can suggest. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The plot section does not open the article--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence has been rewritten to be a little clearer. As to the whys and wherefores, the film doesn't explain it much. DonQuixote (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is Also a Post Credit Scene, Which Shows the Teaser for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness ODDJOBSGIN (talk) 14:24, 18 December 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

CinemaScore

This Deadline article has stated that the film received an A+ CinemaScore, but the CinemaScore website doesn't list the film. Should we add the information or wait for the official release? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot update (?)

With Spider-Man's identity now revealed, our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is unmasked and no longer able to keep his normal life, as Peter Parker, a secret while being a superhero. When Peter asks for Doctor Strange for help, his situation quickly became even more dangerous, forcing him to discover what it truly means to be a superhero. Demi vlchk (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Plot section, it states that Peter Parker's identity as Spider-Man was "pubicly revealed.". It should say that it was "publicly revealed." Mphil67 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This soon after release, we should not be adding Tobey and Andrew to the starring actors section or the introduction paragraph to protect those who have not yet seen the film and may just be looking for information such as runtime, box office performance, and critical reception. These details may be moved to the Plot, Cast, Production, Marketing, and Future sections.

- Change “The film is directed by Jon Watts and written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, and stars Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man alongside Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau, Jamie Foxx, Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Benedict Wong, Tony Revolori, Marisa Tomei, Andrew Garfield, and Tobey Maguire.” to “The film is directed by Jon Watts and written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, and stars Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man alongside Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau, Jamie Foxx, Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Benedict Wong, Tony Revolori, and Marisa Tomei.” - Under STARRING, remove Andrew Garfield and Tobey Macguire from the end of the list for the time being- at least another week. - Change “No Way Home explores the concept of the multiverse and ties the MCU to past Spider-Man film series, with numerous actors—including previous Spider-Man actors Maguire and Garfield—reprising their roles from the Spider-Man films directed by Sam Raimi and Marc Webb. The return of Maguire and Garfield was the subject of speculation, and Sony, Marvel, and the cast attempted to conceal their involvement despite numerous leaks.” to “No Way Home explores the concept of the multiverse and ties the MCU to past Spider-Man film series, with numerous actors reprising their roles from the Spider-Man films directed by Sam Raimi and Marc Webb.“ Totalgraduater (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't edit articles to avoid spoilers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
To elaborate, here’s the policy WP:SPOILER--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2021 (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)
  • 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.
  • 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)
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-Misplaced Pages, 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 " 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

With great power

May's words seems unnecessary, they just lengthen the summary AxGRvS (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That phrase is an important, notable, defining moment in Peter Parker's life and also plays a big role in the movie connecting MCU's Peter Parker to the others. — Starforce 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to put my opinion out here -- Mentioning May telling Peter-One that "With Great Power, There Must Also Come Great Responsibility" is important thematically to the story (and thus the plot). Peter wouldn't make the choices he does in the third act without that final exhortation by May, and it's an important part of Spider-Man lore, regardless of the medium. And it needn't be wordy, as Buh6173 shows. It. Needs. To. Stay.
Ooznoz (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Ooznoz
It's not about it's important to Spider-Man (which it is) but it doesn't add nothing relevant to THIS plot summary. AxGRvS (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Also May's words are already mentioned in the 'With great power' article, it's just not notable here, for this summary AxGRvS (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is notable because it's Spider-Man. This is in the Tobey Maguire film and (I assume) the Andrew Garfield film. It's from the first Spider-Man story back in 1962, and it's practically become a motif for the character, regardless of medium. A brief mention in this plot summary is important, and it doesn't detract at all. Ooznoz (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Ooznoz
I think it's ridiculous to claim that the version of the statement the movie provides is only notable for the statement's page but not the page of the movie it played out in--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No description for the post-credit scenes

It contains Doctor Strange 2's trailer with Elizabeth Olsen. It needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:400B:10F4:C493:BE4:E99E:4FA4 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a post-credits scene, but a trailer for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, similar to The Avengers's trailer at the end of Captain America: The First Avenger. It is not part of the plot of the film. —El Millo (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Marvel's official designations for Raimi and TASM Spider-Men

Marvel has given official designations for the Raimi Spider-Man and TASM Spider-Man.

Raimi's Spider-Man is named Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man: https://www.marvel.com/characters/friendly-neighborhood-spider-man

TASM Spider-Man is named The Amazing Spider-Man: https://www.marvel.com/characters/the-amazing-spider-man

Should the character names be edited in the cast section to reflect this? Or is what's there enough? giftheck (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. They are still credited as "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" in the film. YgorD3 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I've put such info in each of their descriptions after the "Peter 2/3" notes, where this is most appropriate, since we don't get these names in the film or the credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

No way home's indian release date is not given in release date section. It's 16 December 2021. ShadPlayz (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Osborn's Motivations

You guys seem to have omitted his motivations for being the lead Villain completely from the plot summary. He finds out what happened to himself in Spiderman (2002) from Doctor Octopus and what happened to Harry in Spiderman 3 from Sandman, then subsequently goes insane. It's an extremely important part of the plot. I can understand not going into too much detail. But there should be at least one sentence along the lines of "Octopus and Sandman inform Osborn of his own suicide and that of Harry Osborn, enraging him into wanting revenge on Spiderman" with a subnote saying "as depicted in Sam Raimi's Spiderman Trilogy". Colliric (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states that, and it'll probably be included in a Themes and analysis section. DonQuixote (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Osborn didn't turn evil. It was Green Goblin who took over because he's just naturally evil and couldn't care less about Harry or any other motivations. So, the theory wouldn't work even if some website somewhere decided to make up a motivation for him.— Starforce 23:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It's what turns him insane and allows the Goblin to take completely over. So it IS his motivation. Or more accurately, as he basically stated in the film directly to Peter before telling him he didn't care he's a different Parker, it's his excuse. Colliric (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Osborn doesn't have any given motivations in the film other than his Goblin personality being evil and taking over. This is pure WP:OR. JOEBRO64 02:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Having seen the movie, this really just isn't the case. Osborn is helpful and sane, even knowing what happened to him in his universe, and continues to help working on cures until the Goblin takes back control at which point he becomes a villain again. There is no motiviation to speak from Osborns side, and his personality shift just happens, there is no specific thing called out in the movie that triggered it. Peter just notices through his spidey-sense that his Osborn suddenly became a threat. Osborn himself never shows any ill will against any of the Peters.--YannickFran (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's explicitly stated as his excuse for targeting Peter, before he also immediately smiles and states "I don't (actually) care" when Peter contends he's not the same Parker. Colliric (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

He literally says "Norman's dead, YOU KILLED HIM!". Colliric (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can cite where he explicitly says "I want revenge because" or words to that effect, then that'll be great. DonQuixote (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Gary Weeks

I’ve noticed that Gary Weeks reprised his role from Homecoming in this. Trying to find a source to support this, would his resume suffice? Rusted AutoParts 23:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've found no reliable sources that mention him reprising his role. His resume doesn't even list his role. —El Millo (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Aren't film credits enough? Kuhnaims (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
No, we use secondary sources for this. We also generally consider that, if there aren't reliable secondary sources that report on it, then it must not be notable enough for inclusion. —El Millo (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Daredevil

Is there a reason Charlie Cox isn’t named in the cast for his cameo appearance as Matt Murdoch? 2406:3400:314:5720:8D18:CEA1:EC11:2678 (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, just saw it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:314:5720:8D18:CEA1:EC11:2678 (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

That's a post credits scene and wasn't terribly important to the plot. Not sure it should even be mentioned. Colliric (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned as it is likely setting something up for a future film.Spanneraol (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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 them by edit warring, ignoring the page and the edit summaries and writing nonsensical reasons and accusations. ภץאคгöร 18:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Categories: