Draft talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse/Archive 1

The conflict
I shouldn’t have to justify why removing explicitly sourced material is wrong. The disruptive editor claims their edit is justified without evidence. If every editor walked in claiming eminent domain and their edit was justified without actually justifying their edits, nothing would get done. Why should I have to defend the status quo when they have no sources that state there are separate crews for both films. Removing the part about the pay-1 window deal already existing between SPA and Netflix hasn’t been justified and yet the disruptive editor restores their version wholesale. It makes no sense--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Adamstom.97 is a very experienced editor, especially in film-related articles. He may not always be right (none of us ever are), but he knows the ropes around film articles, and you could learn a lot from him about how to get a.draft to mainspace. As you've been registered on Wikipedia for barely a month, it might be a good idea if you were a little less aggressive, and took more advantage of his experience. BilCat (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not being aggressive, if he’s so experienced he should know the ropes. Seniority doesn’t mean he can ignore rules (like steamrolling over others’ versions instead of going to the talk page) or break them (repeatedly reverting others’ edits, ignoring warnings and WP:STATUSQUO--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why you're upset, but this isn't the way to solve the problem. You're still relatively new here, and there is probably something you don't know that he does on this issue. He'll explain his side, I'm sure, but be open to it, and less confrontational. BilCat (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m aware this isn’t the way to go about it. Wikipedia policy says that status quo should’ve been maintained. Power and seniority were used to flip the conflict.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked a little bit into the sources, and seems to be correct that they do not confirm most of the creatives are returning for Part Two. However, having made the changes after a 20-day absence, he should've come to discuss after being reverted, as his edits challenged what was the WP:STATUSQUO. However much WP:OR it may have been, it wasn't egregiously so and many other editors hadn't realized it. I'd avise, though, CreecregofLife, to take a little more time if your edit is reverted, especially being such a new registered user, instead of opening an WP:ANEW thread and getting angry in the edit summaries with flawed arguments and inequivalent examples. —El Millo (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So because I’m new I shouldn’t report actually egregious abuses? That I’m not allowed to be upset because he’s “bigger than me” per se? He still never justified his reversions, he just claimed they were, and ignored all feedback. There were exactly zero instances of original research in what was reverted. Why are his feelings worth upholding more?--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I definitely did not mean for all of this to be taken the way it has been. : I don't believe WP:STATUSQUO applies in this case because I don't think enough time had passed for the unsourced details to became part of the STATUSQUO when you take the current holiday break into account, but I understand if others don't see it that way. , you cannot add unsourced information to articles which is exactly what has happened here: since I last saw the article, someone made a huge assumption that this film has the same directors, writers, and actors as the previous one without any sources backing up that claim. The fact that you think I am "senior" to you or "bigger than" you is irrelevant, we are all equals here and have to play by the same rules. I'm not sure why you jumped all the way to "egregious abuses" as I believe that is an absurd interpretation of what has happened here, and I think if you had waited a reasonable time for me to respond to your message here then you would have realised that earlier. Either way, this is not the place to discuss your personal feelings about my behaviour (there is a nice thread at WP:AN/EW as well as our own talk pages for that if required). Getting back on topic, you need to provide a source that supports the directors, writers, and cast of this film or that information should be removed/hidden. Pretty simple really. For the Netflix info, I removed that stuff because I know it has previously been removed from other articles (that have the exact same sources as this one does) for being unsourced. If it is genuinely sourced by those articles then that is my mistake, but it doesn't mean that those changes are correct because they are changing the context of that discussion in a way that I don't believe is useful to readers. It is definitely something that should be discussed rather than blanket reverting. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was explained how you didn't wait any time at all before going to WP:ANEW. You didn't give Adamstom anytime to answer here before reporting him. I'm saying you were correct about the WP:STATUSQUO and that Adamstom should've been the one to start the discussion, I literally said it above yet you interpreted it exactly the wrong way. See how you're inflating the conflict? You seem to have experienced similar situations with other users and packing them all in the same bag. I clearly said that, while you were right in that he was the one to break the status quo, your arguments were flawed, and the Entertainment Weekly source actually doesn't confirm anyone but Lord and Miller for Part Two. In summary, you were right about the ways, Adamstom was right about the content. Using clearly flawed arguments in your edit summaries, though, will almost everytime result in the other editor just reverting again. Remember there isn't only the bold, revert, discuss, but also bold, revert, revert, when a reversion is clearly mistaken and just one more edit summary may settle the whole thing. —El Millo (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What’s not useful to readers is condescension. Just because you know something doesn’t make what you know a fact. You were told exactly what was going on and still readded the incorrect information. The fact is, the Spiderverse films aren’t coming to Netflix pay-1 because “they got more Spider-Man films”. First of all, these films are Sony Pictures Animation films. They’d still be coming anyway, whether they are Spider-Man films or not. And that they’re Sony films in the 2022-2026 release date range reinforces such. Being Spider-Man films is practically irrelevant. And if you were really interested in following the rules, you would’ve actually followed the rules, instead of directly telling me to do your duty. You haven’t demonstrated being an equal at all. And that’s an issue. Adamstom is maybe only a quarter right about the content, and that is clearly established here.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now who's being condensing! It's obvious you think only your interpretation is correct, amd really don't care what anyone else thinks. You need to dial back your anger, or you're not going to last very long on Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not being condescending, I’m using fact. I don’t appreciate being told that I’m not allowed to get emotional, when I’m not yelling or actually being angry makes it impossible to respond without further accusation of anger. This is turning into an incredibly unfair argument, especially when my argument hasn’t been rebutted--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What "facts"? You haven't presented a single source here to back up your "facts", just stated things you claim are correct. adamstom97 has asked you for sources, and you've yet to present them. Wikipedia is based on verifiability through reliable sources, not "facts". BilCat (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which argument you're referring to because we're speaking about two things at the same time here—a content dispute and a behavior dispute. On the content, the Entertainment Weekly source does not back up the return of the directors, the actors, or writer Callahan for Part Two, it only backs up the return of Lord and Miller, because it states that they said, which could include any number of people but only includes the two of them for certain. Regarding the deal being an extension of a deal with Sony Pictures Animation, it isn't precisely correct, because this isn't an extension, they're just two separate deals. But it is relevant that this previous deal exists so it should be included, written differently than what it was. Now, as for the clarification that the pay-1 window lasts 18 months and , I don't where it comes from, and it seems it is unsourced as well. So in conclusion, it doesn't seem that , but mostly right. —El Millo (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are already present in the article. This conversation isn’t in a vacuum. Why am I being accused of not doing things I’ve already actually done, but Adam isn’t being held to the same standard? This is what I meant when I said he flipped the burden onto me when the burden was always his. He’s using power and seniority to make him appear favorable. Why is WP:COMMONSENSE being thrown out as “Inference” and “assumption” and being allowed to be thrown out? He hasn’t provided a single reliable source that says that two separate crews are working on it. He even threw a citation needed template at Callaham, who is explicitly name dropped in the EW article. He made his edit without reading the sources he claimed didn’t suffice on any region of his edit, and yet you’re defending him because you perceived I acted irrationally, when I didn’t. The way I’m being treated isn’t right.
 * Many things are likely or reasonable to expect. We don't include them here. Because we need reliable sources to confirm them. There's a claim here that the exact same cast and crew is working on Part Two, you need to provide evidence for it apart from common sense. There's no need to prove a different cast and crew is working on Part Two. You can't ask for your claim to be proven wrong, the WP:ONUS is on you to prove your claim right. You said Callaham is in the article, but just saying his name isn't enough. It doesn't seem too much to ask for an article to say who's returning for Part Two. The EW article is ambiguous about this. —El Millo (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS from Sony’s press release This new agreement builds upon Netflix’s pre-existing output deal with Sony Pictures Animation films to now include all SPE film labels and genres.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That press release is not in the article. If you had provided that at the beginning then most of this discussion would not have been needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Look here. I've found a source that cites an official tweet from Chris Miller confirming that him, Lord, Justin K. Thompson, Kemp Powers, and Joaquim Dos Santos are working on both film simultaneously. That's the kind of confirmation we need. —El Millo (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! So to recap, these are the changes that CreecregofLife wants to make: Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson are directing part two (source does not support this but new one has now been provided by El Millo); Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham are writing part two (source does not support this, only says that Lord and Miller worked on a general story for both parts and that they are working on part two in some capacity, no other source provided); Shameik Moore voices Morales in part two, starring alongside Oscar Isaac and Hailee Steinfeld (source does not support this, no other source provided); "Work on both parts was taking place simultaneously" -> "Work on both parts occurred simultaneously by the same crew" (suggests that work is completed on both parts which is not true, says the exact same crew is working on both parts which is not supported by the source, no other source provided); Netflix deal is an extension of an existing deal with Sony Pictures Animation (source does not support this but a new one has been provided by CreecregofLife); "beginning approximately six months from the theatrical release date" (source does not support this, no other source provided). Additionally, while double checking the sources that are in the article, I noticed that the Netflix deal source specifically mentions the sequels to Into the Spider-Verse so I think it is fair to replace the mention of No Way Home with that. Unless other sources are going to be provided, I think we should move forward with adding the new source for the directors, hiding the writers and cast until we get sources to support them, making the SPA extension change using the new source, and making the NWH -> ISV change I mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d like to point out again, as I did in one of my edit summaries, that the THR article said the same as the press release. If the edit summary hadn’t been ignored, and I wasn’t told to do something I shouldn’t have had to do in a completely unnecessary reversion, we wouldn’t be here. Again, the burden of proof wasn’t on me. I think the wording should be reverted to what it was when this started, but with the new sources to supplement them (if the Callaham CN was in the lede, then remove the CN and place the source in its body part--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source confirms Callaham for Part Two? Cite the specific cite that does. The edit before the reversion has unsourced parts, already explained in detail above, to which you didn't respond, and the parts that aren't unsourced are awkwardly written, so it's not worth going back to it now that we're advancing in the discussion. —El Millo (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The project details closing paragraph (“W project stars X is directed by Y and is produced by Z…" on the EW article only says “Across the Spiderverse". If it was only pertaining to part 1, then it would say so. Meaning it encompassed both parts--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's ambiguous to me. We have no rush to include it if it isn't clearly confirmed, the way the other source I provided earlier confirms other names clearly and unambiguously. —El Millo (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an assumption that you are making and I do not believe the wording in the article is clear enough for us to infer that EW knows that. If they clearly stated that the sentence applied to both parts then that would be different, but they don't and it comes across as a pretty standard critical round-up of what we already know (which at that point only applied to part one). The fact that Miller did not confirm Callaham when he confirmed the directors for Part 2 also suggests that we should be wary. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And your beliefs and assertion of suggestion is any different from inference?--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with that sentence (other than trying to sound smart), but at Wikipedia we have to make decisions about what sources are reliable and that includes determining where they got their information. A vague statement in a generally reliable source like this might by all good if it clearly comes from a direct interview or is part of a report from one of their own reliable sources, but in this case that does not appear to be the case and we are safer to wait until a better source either confirms this or gives us alternative, accurate information. Remember there is WP:NOHURRY here, we can afford to wait for a better source to emerge. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we’ve got it settled then. While I do still disagree with how you went about things and I do still believe they warrant harsher scrutiny, I will say, as far as cast and crew inclusions thus far, I was admittedly lenient about the cast…in practice. In discussion however, I did bring up that Miles was the only really confirmed cast member for plot reasons. I’m sure Hailee and Oscar will be in both parts, but the way I see it, it’s a capacity thing. There are three tiers for me, and I’ll base them on Avengers Endgame, though it might be four: The survivors (the mains), the blipped (had big billing in part 1, but were also snapped, leading to a reduced role) and the Frigga (the one scene wonder). Maybe the latter leans into an Irene Adler in Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows/Laurie Strode in Halloween Resurrection instead, or something less fatal that just incapacitates.--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may offer a recommendation in the future (to whom, I'm not positive): To better substantiate claims that something is already in the existing sources or that it is not in the sources, providing a quote off the bat and your interpretation of it would probably eliminate half of the text wall above here... It looks like the first quotes or paraphases only came just above the first outdent... -2pou (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently I have fixed everything up, and there is WP:NORUSH for further details. As with WP:PROVEIT we need to wait until more cast members are confirmed. In the latest update, Jake Johnson doesn't know if his character Peter B. Parker is returning. The Media Expert (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Release Date
Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse will release sometime in 2025, 2026, 2027 or 2028. 68.194.138.254 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Source? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Further updates
I don't think there is a premise for the film. The film of course will continue from the cliffhanger where its predecessor ended, but like I said in the conflict section of the talk page, there is WP:NORUSH to add a premise and a third-party reliable source confirming it to the draft. Do you agree with this? The Media Expert (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There isn't one? And what "conflict section" are you referring to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus The "conflict section" is probably the first discussion at the top of this page (which they had commented on). Jolly1253 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The three-year-old discussion involving a blocked editor and a semi-retired editor? In any case, I don't think that discussion had anything to do with a premise (which has never been added to the draft). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Dialogue recording
If Digital Spy (published by Hearst UK) is considered a reliable source, then we have confirmation that dialogue recording has begun and this page can be moved to main space. "Dialogue recording began again recently..." Rlendog (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Limbo
While there are still no updates including on further cast confirmation, and marketing for the film, I am speculating that the film is in development hell. The Media Expert (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The recordings are currently in progress. The film is way past the development stage. —El Millo (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If recording is in progress, then as Rlendog wrote above this page should be moved. I wasn't sure earlier, so I didn't respond. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to NFF, when it comes to animated films, they can be moved to mainspace once "reliable sources confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced". Is this the case here? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @PanagiotisZois, usually drafts about animated films are moved to the main space when the animated film is in post-production or when the first trailer for the animated is released, so no, this is actually not the case. The Media Expert (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have to wait until post-production or a trailer to move this to the mainspace. That is absurd and not a standard. The dialogue recording statement in this Digital Spy ref is attributed to Chis Miller saying in December: "We're in production [...] We're really excited about where the story is going. I think it's a very satisfying conclusion to the trilogy and it's as emotional as the other ones. We’re knee-deep in it." His comments make no mention of recording whatsoever, so this is Digital Spy assuming what he meant. It is also not brought up in the Screen Rant interview from Moore also discussed in the Digital Spy ref. There is WP:NORUSH in moving at this time and we can wait until we get concrete evidence confirming recording has actually begun. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside from that,, please don't just make new comments or discussion on drafts for projects in development noting the lack of any news as it is unnecessary. These projects take time, especially as Hollywood just got done with a dual strike only a few months ago and is getting back to work with a lot of aspects. When news is reported on, it will be available and it can be added then. In the meantime, please don't continue to make discussions just for the sake of inserting your own perspective or speculation on each project's status. They're in the draftspace for a reason. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oscar Isaac wants Pedro Pascal
I found a source saying that Oscar Isaac, who plays Spider-Man 2099, wants Pedro Pascal in Beyond the Spider-Verse. Could Trailblazer101 add this source to both the sequel section in the Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse article and the production section of the Beyond the Spider-Verse draft? The Media Expert (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Any actor can express interest in having someone be in a movie. That doesn't mean it is always notable, and in this case (like most), it is not. I'm not going to just make requested edits, either. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Spider-Ham
The directors of both Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse promise that Spider-Ham will appear in Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse as mentioned in this source. Could this source be added to the draft or not? The Media Expert (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you going to use the source in the draft Trailblazer101? The Media Expert (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the original source, when asked about more Spider-Ham, Dos Santos said "That's a good point, actually. That was some stuff that was cut pretty early on, just for time. We knew part of the joy of Gwen getting the band back together was the promise that you'll see them more in the next one." His comments were more of a generalization that many of these characters are intended to return, and he doesn't explicitly confirm the character's return, just indicating it. It seems to be more trivial information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)