Talk:Spider-Man/Archive 3

Gwen Stacy (Parker)
Should Gwen be in the "spider" section? She was married to him in one alternate reality and had very close ties to him in this one, but it's too clunky to mention the alternate universe part, it's incorrect to call her Gwen Stacy Parker otherwise, and it would be generally strange to have someone not technically related to Peter in the family section. Thoughts? Tinderblast 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Alternate reality don't couint !--Brown Shoes22 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to be! Tinderblast 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How the hell was Gwen Stacy ever Peter's common law wife? They never lived together nor had a child, which are usually requirements to qualify as such. She can't be in the superhero box as her common-law wife, it's abusing the term (she died when they were in their late teens/early twenties, for God's sake!). Unless you want to accept putting the "alternate universe" part, she doesn't really belong in the box. --Ace ETP 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * um... that was kinda the point they just made, einstein. House of M -- wife. it should get a mention (which i'm sure it does) but not in the spider section. solved. MyPokerShirt 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be a dick. --Chris Griswold 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's said in the same tone as the post directly above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocolateRoses (talk • contribs) 19:52, June 17, 2006
 * The above post did not directly insult anyone. --Chris Griswold 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from every other thing &mdash; and as interesting trivia &mdash; real-life New York State doesn't recognize common-law marriage. It came up famously in the late '80s or early '90s in a lawsuit involving the actor William Hurt and the ballet dancer he lived with for years. -- Tenebrae 02:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but New York City also arrests people for wearing masks. (I'm so cool.)--Chris Griswold 07:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities is way long!
There's a whole of lot of history here. Maybe this section should be trimmed down, with the pertinent plot points relocated to more appropriate sections of the article, to make it more consistent with the rest of the wikipedia comics project?

The entire article is too long. They're working on trimming down the article for the Hulk and it isn't nearly as long as this one.

You can't cut it down to reach the standards of Wikipedia and I think it isn't the main principal to do so by all means. Spider-Man is running for 45 years by now, and it is way too reasonable, that it's growing all the time. The page won't get any critically longer unless it reaches episode #1000. Until that point it is fine as it is now. To cut down "less important" information means to ignore something that branches out to issues covering an year's data or so. In the very case of Powers and Abilities it is adequate writing down exceptional events and theories that readers might come across during the saga, because the creators' intents were the same as ours. To understand the nature of them. To avoid sg mentioned in one or two books will lead to misunderstand the abilities of a Spider-sensed hero, and the "realistic" aspects of the existance of such a being. Lajbi 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Superman article. They managed to shrink the powers section by creating a new article specifically for his powers info. Seems like a good idea for here, too. dfg 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when was there an official update on Spider-Man's powers stating he could run at 75 miles per hour? I've never seen any write-up say that. However, the Official Handbook to Marvel Universe for Spider-Man published in 2005 does state that he can now lift 15 tons, is roughly 15 times more agile than a normal person, and spider-sense improving to have a "psychic alignment to his environment, specifically to insects." Should that be worked into his list of powers? Sera404 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on exactly what his strength level is. I remember it was said that Spider-Man can lift 15 tons officially, so where does the 20-25 ton strength level come from that was mentioned in the article? I'm not a regular follower of the Spider-Man comic, I usually keep in the loop to know what's going on, but has his strength increased beyond the 15 ton limit since he "died" and if so, is there anything official to state that it's increased to the levels specified within the article? Odin&#39;s Beard

Not sure. At the time of writing for the OHTMU Spider-Man 2005, The Other storyarc wasn't finished yet (or if it even started yet). After he regenerated, his senses went up another level again (he stated something like he felt like his whole life was comparable to a baseball weighed down by metal donuts and now he's swinging without them on), allowing him to respond to things which were 'spider-related'. He could also recognise type of spiders at a glance, though this is probably just a one-off thing. And yes, it was stated that his strength, speed, senses, agility all upgraded after he was reborn, having accepted internally that the spider gave him more than just strength, senses, agility, adhesion, and webs, and stopped suppressing his powers. However, the limits haven't been defined yet... or at least, not that I know of. Who knows how much the new Iron Spidey armour boosts his strength as well? =) Sera404 10:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section of the article placing his strength in the 20-25 ton range. Nobody have a fit just yet, personally I have no problem with including stats, if they're Marvel canon, within articles. In a section devoted to a fictional character possessing superhuman abilities, I think it's important that as much detail be given as possible for the overall quality of the article. I thought that was the purpose of an encyclopedia, whether it be online or not. I personally find it ridiculous to mention a character has superhuman strength without stating how much they can actually lift, or give a general idea of at least. However, a few people have eliminated certain stats taken from Marvel Comics' sources, particularly strength levels. I know that T-1000 and SoM have done it in a couple of articles, which I've still yet to really figure out why. I don't know if they have any sort of special privledges or if they run Wikipedia or whatever the situation is, but I figured that I'd simply remove the strength stat since they would have gotten around to it eventually. I'm not trying to raise a huge stink over it or anything, I simply fail to understand what the real problem with including some stats into articles if they're canon and not merely someone's opinion. Odin&#39;s Beard

Powers definitely needs (and has) its own section: Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment. It was linked here, but it was reset by a user to the complicated format it is presently in. Personally, it seemed fine as before, with a small number of paragraphs detailing his powers, with the link that expanded on all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.232.133 (talk • contribs)

I think the article is better served by condensing that section. A lot of editors have been adding bits here and there and making subheads, but if we just take a moment to re-organize, it will be fine again. We need to change the section in light of the "Other" storyline, just as most of the DC articles have needed to be changed due to constant updates since the beginning of Infinite Crisis. --Chris Griswold 05:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be condensed now... it looks like it's nearly 1/4 of the whole article as is. Most people probably just want the basic rundown, while the hardcore fans can check out the entire list or whatever. Also, the page I started for his powers & such, goes into more detail than what is presented here, along with rundowns of his newer powers.--Kozmik_Pariah

Hi not a registered member but I was one of the people that kept changing the strength level to ten tons. I hope this is sorted now.

Action figures?
Can someone add something on spiderman action figures please? Htaccess 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At most it deserves a brief entry in the "other media" section and possibly a link to a page on action figures. As far as I know, the toy manufacturers have never contributed any significant original material to the character, as have TV and film adaptation. BryanEkers 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a slightly longer mention in the media (pop culture) area, including a link to a page for the Spider-Man classics stuff. --Kozmik_Pariah, 11 June 2006

Please don't cut anything out!! I enjoyed reading the whole thing, and am sure other fans would too. If anything, add more to the other areas to balance the article out. If people don't want to read it they don't have to :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.194.108 (talk • contribs).


 * But Wikipedia isn't written for fans. There are plenty of fan sites for that, some of them of incredibly professional quality. Wikipedia policy, for good reason, is that articles be written for a general audience.--Tenebrae 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3
I'd like to remove the argument about whether or not Spidey will be wearing a black costume or not in the new movie. Here's what the official movie site has to say, "You may think you’re looking at a black and white photo. Look closely, Spider-Man wears a black suit in Spider-Man 3. Tobey Maguire returns as Peter Parker / Spider-Man in Spider-Man 3. In Theaters 5/4/07." Anyone object? -Digresser 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Spidey has both black and red in Spidey 3. Photos exist. June 9 06.-Kozmik_Pariah

11 June 06: http://www.manyhighways.com/photoblog/20060610.php

The black costumes nothing like the classic black one and in my opinion its as important as the classic red and blue :( I'm massively disappointed. anyone else? &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk

Not disappointed. It's gonna be a symbiote. YAY!--71.30.40.231 01:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Enhanced physicality
There seems to be an edit war going on about the exact amount Spider-man can lift, and whether he can lift more under duress. Any thoughts on how to stop this? Psyphics 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the only thing that seems to have proven effective in any way is to just remove the amounts of weight a character can lift altogether. Whether Spider-Man can lift 10 tons or 15 tons, I don't really know. Personally, I'm sticking with the 10 ton amount. But, in order to quell the whole thing, it's just better to say that he possesses superhuman strength sufficient to lift many tons and be done with it. Personally, it doesn't bother me if there are stats that've been accepted as Marvel canon used in the article, but they'll just be removed by someone anyhow. Odin&#39;s Beard


 * This is true, but I've seen it switch between 10, 15, and "several" over and over again, so someone doesn't seem to be accepting the vague description. Psyphics 00:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't point to a specific reference, but I've seen on several talk pages that the general thinking is to not include specific numbers. Because the strength of any particular character varies based on the writer and the circumstances, it's usually left vague. See Strength level (comics) for more on this topic in general. CovenantD 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently, Spider-Man was last stated by Official Handbook to Marvel Uniform (which generally prints strength ranges if it's not too high) to be able to lift 15 tons approximately (due to events from the Queen, though this was before "The Other". "The Other" arc has implied that he's stronger now.  Add in his new armour, and we have a world of trouble.  Maybe once the next OHtMU book for Spidey comes out, it can be defined.  Or you could use the old Marvel way of stating strength ranges by saying Spider-Man is in the Class 15 strength range or something?  Sera404 12:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see much need to define his strength by the number of tons he can lift beyond "several." Whether he can lift 10 tons or 15 tons is moot in the world of comic books as either are greater than most conceivably liftable things he would encounter in NYC.  If he needs to lift something that weighs somewhere between 10 and 15 tons, I don't think a writer would think twice about allowing him to do so with a certain amount of strain.  Like it says in the Strength level article, strength classes for comics characters are very loose, and to just leave the amount of tons he can lift at "several" illustrates that well enough.  Psyphics 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one reason why so many feel compelled to include the strength stats in many of the articles is that they're canon and are officially from Marvel Comics. Since they're thought of as an official statement by the company, I suppose some feel that they should be included. One thing that sparks so much debate is that up until recently, Spider-Man had never really done anything to indicate that he could lift more than 10 tons, which is where his strength level has been placed since the original Marvel Handbooks came out like 26 years ago. Many don't tend to accept change very well in many situations, this one included, when it's suddenly just thrust upon them all at once. It's not a life altering issue or anything of that nature, but I guess it's a source of solidity. For over two and a half decades, that's where he was categorized and now it's suddenly been changed. I don't particularly have any problem with strength stats being included personally, but it's just easier all around for them not to be included. Odin&#39;s Beard

Interesting note on looking up the word 'several' via dictionary.com. "Being of a number more than two or three but not many". I guess 'several' somewhat implies a number in the lower single digit range, which when thinking about it, I've always thought of 'several' to be like that too. Seeing as Spider-Man has always been able to generally lift in the double-digit range (even at the lower scale), perhaps if you change the word 'several', people might be satisfied? Sera404 09:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * More than anything, I'm just tired of the edit wars back and forth, and am seeking a consensus as to what will be included in the article. While, I admit "several" does connote a smaller number than 10 or 15, Spidey can't lift "lots" of tons and can lift more than "a handful."  If we're going vague, we may have to settle.  I argued for inexactness in this article, but I'm personally fine with including approximate weights as long as those weights can be agreed upon, or better yet cited. Psyphics 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Spider-Man can lift multiple tons"...? CovenantD 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a little too vague I think. Maybe a reference to certain items he's lifted or could lift, I seem to remember him described as "able to lift a tank" over his head. I mean, rubble can weigh any number of tons, but certain heavy things he has encountered in NYC or anywhere else he'd be expected to go could describe just how much he could lift.  Also, is it notable that due to his superhuman strength he pulls his punches against many of his human foes (like Doc Ock) as it stated in his Marvel Team-Up with Invincible? Psyphics 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference to him being able to lift a tank was printed on the back of a series of trading cards. If I remember correctly the card stated, as if it were himself describing his strength, he could lift 10 tons, enough to lift a tank over his head. The truth is, without actually coming out and just stating how much he's officially said to be able to lift, describing his strength is going to be somewhat vague. Odin&#39;s Beard
 * Yeah! It was on a card now that you mention it. Like I said before, I see no problem with vague, but a slightly narrowed grey area would be better.  "Many" as SoM just changed it to today seems a bit better than "several" but if we could get cited references to what he's lifted with a struggle (like a railroad car or a tank), then we'd have a better idea as to what he could lift without having to cite specific weights or plagiarize the handbooks. Psyphics 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Psyphics. I've been changing Spider-Man's strength level, as well as a couple of other people. I had no way of contacting you, so I'm glad you referred me to this page. Thanks! As a long time Spider-Man fan, I heard from various sources, including the comics, Web sites and The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, that he can life 10 tons. Also, Odin's Beard is right, because I have that trading card that states Spider-Man's strength and how he can lift a small tank. Personally, I don't see why his strength level shouldn't be included. Just say according to various sources, he used to lift 10 tons or more under stress and now because of the Other changes, he can lift 15. According to many fans, myself included, it's fun to see the limit of our heroes' strengths, speeds, etc. and have fun discussions. In fact, a couple of Marvel heroes have their strength levels mentioned on Wikipedia and we don't see why Spider-Man's can't be included. By not including his specific strength levels, the comic book fan and media reporters have no idea just how strong our favorite Web Head is and will report on him with great error. As fans, I'm sure all of us do not want to see that. — Newseditor
 * Glad you responded, it appeared from your other edits you weren't a vandal. "Various sources" without mentioning any of them I would think borders on weasel words, though I may be wrong. I like the idea of telling exact weights as well, but as previously discussed, strength classes are very loosely defined and there's often a lot of wiggle room for writers.  Also, we have yet to find a source we can actually cite on the precise amount of weight he can lift.  If you need to respond directly to me, you can always use my talk page, all registered users have them.Psyphics 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No weasel words intended. I tend to write a lot and to save time and space, I sometimes use "various" a lot. It's a reporter's habit, sadly. Anyway, why isn't The Official Handkbook of the Marvel Universe or the trading cards good enough? It does give a precise amount. — Newseditor, 17:45, May 9, 2006
 * To my understanding, the handbooks are encyclopaedic themselves. It'd be plagiarism. The cards don't address his post-Other strength, though I'd imagine we could use the card for the 10 ton amount.  Kinda odd to cite a card though.
 * I'd like to restate that I have no problem if the article stays vague or states to his max press to the 10th decimal place, as long as we can be relatively accurate and legal. My main concern is that we can reach consensus and avoid edit wars. Psyphics 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The card is ITSELF citing the HB, under a licence from Marvel, though.
 * And Newseditor (and please register if you're going to sign a name, huh?), could you point out which "Marvel heroes have their strength levels mentioned", so I can yank them out there? We can never cite a specific strength level because we're either taking it from a Handbook (perhaps at a remove, since a lot of sites do copy the Handbook), or we're violating WP:NOR.
 * Plus, there's still the basic problem that the %^&*ing things are never kept to anyway - talking about lifting a tank or whatever is a high-end thing, but ofttimes he's shown as nowhere near that (the HB itself vagued this up slightly with the "bench-press under optimal conditions" thing, meaning they'd never be able to lift that in "reality" unless they were in the off-the-scale category) - SoM 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, under a suggestion, I did register. Just give me a few days to get used to finding my way around this message board and making my comments. Anyway, to answer someone's question about letting them know which Marvel heroes' strength level is listed so they can yank it out, my answer is No. I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time, but as I said earlier, people like to know their favorite heroes strength levels. As far as citing stuff and if it goes againist copyright, as a professional journalist for the last 10 years, I know something about this. As long as you cite the source, it's fine. Even without citing a source, you're not going against any copyright agreements, since no one on here is saying they creating Spider-Man and his strength stats. I hope this helps and will soon see Spider-Man's past and present levels listed in the very near future. — Newseditor, 11:10 a.m., 10, May 2006.

Psyphics, I understand what you're saying, but it is OK if you cite the source. Now, from what I understand, the OTHMU is not a secondary source, but the main source. Now, let's say I found the Marvel trading card that accompanied a Spider-Man comic and I scanned it and placed it on here. Is that OK? That's another main source by the owners of Spider-Man and it would be cited. — Newseditor"~"s
 * I'm not schooled in copyright law, but I see where SoM is coming from. I think the problem is that the OHTMU is an encyclopedia and you are including its information (especially if it's a primary source, because then it would be original) in another encyclopedia.  If you were to include in a novel or non-encyclopedic work that Spider-Man could lift 10 tons (barring the licensing problems in using the character) then you would not be in breach of copyright, but since you are using it as such, it's a problem.  And you should type out all four tildes in a row to sign.  You can "show preview" before posting what you've written. Psyphics 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Psyphics, I have studied the copyright law. Heck, I had to. Yes, OHTMU is an encyclopedia from the primary source for Spider-Man and other characters and its purpose is to inform and entertain the readers. So, it's OK to use it as a source. Let's put it this way, I'm an editor for a medical magazine and I'm writing a story. I need to find out what a certain type of arthritis does to an elderly woman. I look it up in a medical encyclopedia and I cite it as a source. I didn't break any copyright law at all and just about every journalist does this. The same can be done here.

The question that no one has asked regarding this topic is this: Is Wikipedia a REAL encyclopedia? While it is a great Web site and I use it everyday, I would have to say no, it isn't. No disrespect to it, but a real encyclopedia can't be changed by anyone at any time of the day like this Web site. Heck, if I wanted to, I can change your comments right now and have you say you like to play with Barbie dolls. With a real encyclopedia, you can't do that except your own personal copy. The changes you make there is for your own viewing and not for the whole world to see, like it is here.

And again, mentioning Spider-Man's strength isn't a licensing problem. If it was, we couldn't mention any of his powers or himself for that matter. Trust me, as long as you cite the source, it's OK to list how much our favorite Web Head can lift, either in the past or now. Oh, and thanks for your patience with me in terms of understanding how to post on here. Posting on Wikipedia is far different than what I'm used to on other boards or frays. --Newseditor 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really argue since I don't know copyright law. I can say, however, that your example is fallacious because you're talking about citing a medical encyclopedia in a magazine/journal article - two separate media, whereas Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia and so citing another encyclopedia is a separate issue from your example.  It does seem the issue comes down to what Wikipedia is and is not, and I think you're taking a very conservative view of what an encyclopedia is.  Anyway, anymore discussion of this seems like it should be taken out of this talk page because it's no longer about Spider-Man.  Psyphics 13:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia. If you want to argue that, it would be nice if you would take it somewhere that people aren't giving of themselves to the thing upon which you are casting aspersions.--Chris Griswold 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's assume that Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, contributed by regular guys like us. It's our duty is to give as much detailed information about the subject — Spider-Man for example — and cite sources. We have trading cards and after doing some fact checking, I noticed that The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is not listed as an encyclopedia, not by Wikipedia (which calls it a guide), by Amazon or Marvel itself. So, that being said, those two sources are fine to use. --Newseditor 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Settle down, Chris, I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. But my point was, anyone can change anything on these pages and as a journalist, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, you know? In my line of work, no just anyone can change what is already written in a newspaper or magazine that's been published and then hundreds of people see it. I mean, Wikipedia is a great Web site and I use it alot for different things, but I think calling it a real encyclopedia is going a bit beyond the meaning. But this is what happens when a new medium comes up: Lots of discussion and debate and defining it. And just think, this all came about because people wanted to put Spider-Man's strength levels on this Web site. :-) --Newseditor 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What is a "real" encyclopedia? Check it But that's a side issue. The real issue is can specific, numerical values be put for strengths when they're never actually mentioned in the comic books, and writers only loosely conform to them?  Any time these values are listed they're in licensed encyclopedias.  Psyphics 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also this discussion should be taken to Talk:Strength level (comics), where it's been discussed at length.Psyphics 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, anyone can change anything on Wikipedia, something I think may be a little too easy sometimes. But Wikipedia is for the most part guided by the force of the editors' concensus, which itself is strengthened by facts and citations. --Chris Griswold 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Newseditor has brought up some interesting points that I've thought about myself. Like most of us, I don't know jack about copyright law and all that. I've heard a couple of posters go on about how things like including stats from the Marvel Handbooks violate copyright laws and licensing. I could never really see how including Handbook statistics could be considered violation of copyright whereas practically everything else about the character isn't. It kinda does make sense if you stop to think about it. If I were applying their logic, weren't copyright laws already violated when an article concerning Spider-Man, or any other fictionalc haracter for that matter, was written? Odin&#39;s Beard
 * I tried to get SoM to explain his position since he felt so strongly about it, but I got no response. Is there some sort of consensus that WikiProject Comics has come to about this? Psyphics 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. There is nothing on my talk page, including the history, from you (nor even my e-mail account). Please don't misrepresent - had you posted on my talk page, I would have responded.
 * I'll respond later, when I have time (I'm on my way out just now), but I'd rather not be misreprented like this. And when I brought it up at WT:CMC, everyone who responded agreed - it'll be in the archives of that page. - SoM 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies SoM. While I distinctly remember doing so, I don't see it even in my contribution history so I must have been mistaken. Anyway, I think I found in researching copyright and fair use on Wikipedia, the reasons as to why it's not fair use to use the OHTMU info. Nature of OHTMU is that it's a for-profit comic encyclopedia, and our use of its information could significantly detract from its buyership. I haven't found it yet in WT:CMC, but I'll try to post a link to it if I find it.Psyphics 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not too long back, I included a mention of the Marvel Handbook's strength listing in the Sabretooth article and it was deleted. I asked why the stats were deleted since they were canon published by Marvel Comics and not speculation or simply my own personal opinion. I mentioned that numerous stats taken from Handbooks, both original and current, were placed in the Healing Factor article and had been for many months so I questioned why the strength stats for the Sabretooth article were removed while those stats had been allowed to remain for so long. SoM responded briefly by stating that the stats would soon be removed and that it was decided that they shouldn't be included due to copyright violations and that it was just easier to not include them. No real explanation as to how using stats violated copyright. There wasn't much of an explanation at all. I honestly don't know if there's been a consensus by WikiProject Comics or if it's just a few people enforcing their own personal views and opinions. Odin&#39;s Beard

Odin's Beard brought up a good point. Before I started working for medical magazines, I worked in newspapers. Once the Spider-Man movie came out, a lot of news articles were written about him, giving stats on strength and his other powers. They didn't violate any copyright laws because they weren't saying they created the hero, just reporting on him and what he can do. Bascially, that's what we're doing on here. We're just reporting facts and figures and we have used citations. In fact, I even pointed out that the handbook is really a guide and can be used. I don't see why we can't use it. Trust me on this guys, I've been a journalist a long time and we one thing we don't do is screw around with copyright law or our careers are down the sewers.

Here's another question: Who are these editors that Chris spoke of? Are they the creators of Wikipedia or are we the editors? I'm the new guy, so I hope someone can give me a straight answer on this. From where I sit, we are the editors since we are making changes. --Newseditor 13:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I still see that this is not exactly an analogous situation. Every example given has been news or magazine articles using encyclopedia information. This is using encyclopedia information in another encyclopedia.  I don't know that there's any legal difference there, but there hasn't been a true example given yet of an analogous situation to this.  Regardless, if we can use 'em, use 'em (if we can get a consensus).   As for the "editors" question, we're all editors, and Wikipedia is built on our consensus.  There are sysops that can do more, lock or unlock articles, delete articles, and other such.Psyphics 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OHOTMU is not an encyclopedia. It is a reference book, but not an encyclopedia. Regardless, as long as you are ctiing the source and using the informatiom but not the original text, you're3 in the clear. I work in the press, and I understand copyright law. --Chris Griswold 06:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris my friend, that's what I've been saying. And since we're in agreement about copyright law and that OHOTMU is not an encyclopedia, I'll put in Spider-Man's strength stats. Boy, I'm gladed that's all cleared up. --Newseditor 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I doin't believe I ever said I disagreed with you about that. --Chris Griswold 19:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So if there isn't any violation with the copyright and licensing, couldn't Handbook stats be included in other articles as well just out of curiosity? Odin&#39;s Beard


 * As of right now, they're added, but the only article I've seen that mentions the OHOTMU and copyright as it pertains to Wikipedia WP:WPC/E states to be careful not to "copyvio the statistics printed in the [OHOTMU] ... or similar products" when creating the Powers and abilities section of the article. What exactly constitutes the "copyvio" I'm still unsure. Psyphics 01:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I didn't mean to imply you disagreed with me. Just that I'm happy to have another source to what I'm saying, that's all. To answer your question Odin's Beard, I would say yes, you can use the handbook for other hero stats. Just cite the source. --Newseditor 13:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is everyone talking about copyright, when that is not the problem? Using numbers to describe the strength of fictional characters is giving innacurate information. Spider-Man is able to lift a 10-ton tank. Now, does that mean he can lift a tank without ease, or that he can lift a tank with maximum effort? And then there's the usual problem of different strength representations by several writers, such as having trouble lifting an automobile. That's why strength values in the article should always be left vague. "Several" is the best way to describe it. It gives out the impression that Spider-Man's strength is incredibly superhuman, and that he can lift objects that, normally, you would need large machines for. About the OHOTMU, if even the writers don't respect it or quote it, why should Wikipedia? If the writers either portray Spider-Man as stronger than 10 tons, or weaker than 10 tons, then it's the OHOTMU itself that is wrong. Pc13 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The switch to copyright in this discussion happened from I think my attempt to find some sort of objective reason as to why the OHOTMU should not be cited. It took over as the main thrust of the discussion when vagueness vs. numerical value (falsely?) became a question of subjective choice and consensus. Psyphics 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I switched the article back to the vague "several tons" per a discussion I had on WP:COMICS. You can check it out here, and I recommend it before editing anymore comic book articles. Enlightening about copyright.Psyphics 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pc13, comic book fans love actual stats on their heroes and we hate vague answers, because it could be anything. Using "several" can mean anything. Can he lift three tons or six tons? Now, Spider-Man can lift 10 tons, according to the Handbook and 10 tons doesn't sound like "several" to me. Also, as I said before, a number of articles have been written about Spider-Man and his powers, even saying he can lift 10 tons. That wasn't illegal, because they cited the source. Heck, in the Discovery Channel did a great show of what Marvel heroes strength are to what it would be like in real life. They listed that Spidey can lift 10 tons and of course they got the OK from Marvel. Let's say I contacted Marvel right now and ask them if it's OK to list the stats on this Web site. Would that be OK? It would be a heck of a lot better than speculating about whether or not if it's illegal. --Newseditor 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't speak for all comic book fans. I personally could care less if he could lift 5 tons, 10 tons, or 15 tons.  I know he can lift a car and most other things he would run into in NYC, with just the word "several" to guide me.  If he picked up a city bus it wouldn't surprise me.  It doesn't affect the story much at all how much he can lift as long as its "several" tons.  The consensus is to not post the exact weights because writers are not held to them and so neither are the comic books, thus it's incorrect or at least less correct than "several." To save on edit warring (which was my whole point in starting this discussion), we should just leave it at the more accurate, though vague, "several." Psyphics 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, if it doesn't matter how much he can lift, then let's just put in the amount, cite the source and also say that it does depend on the editor. That way, we have all the info out there. Besides, if Marvel is doing it with their Handbook and trading cards, why can't we? Because being more accurate would be listing the actual amount. And it's not a consensus to not leave the amount in if there are others who are sticking in Spider-Man's page, as well as other heroes. So, there is a group of people who do want the exact numbers. As editors, it is our responsibility to be as exact as possible. --Newseditor 19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, I said it doesn't matter _to me_ exactly how much Spider-Man can lift. Marvel is free to do whatever it wants with its licensed characters.  I personally think that vagueness is the way to go. If you still want to put in exact weights he can lift, take it up with Wikiproject Comics.  In fact, go to the WPCOMICS talk page where I have discussed this at length with other project members and plead your case there. This is a little bigger than just Spider-Man's strength level, it extends to the conformity of all superhero articles.   There needs to be something in the article right now, and since the last consensus built amongst members of WPCOMICS -- which as it states at the top this article is a part of -- was to be vague, that's how it should be until a new consensus can be built. Psyphics 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree with leaving any information on a character vague if it can be helped. I was under the impression that any encyclopedia, whether it be online or not, was to provide as much information about a subject as was available. I agree that it's bigger than exactly how much Spider-Man can lift. Some probably consider such information trivial, some don't. I don't believe Marvel considers such things to be trivial, otherwise why would they have published the various incarnations of the Marvel Handbooks? Evidently, people wanted to know certain things about their characters such as how much they could lift, how durable they are, how fast can they run, energy manipulation abilities and their limits, and so on and so forth. Since numerous individuals have gone to the trouble of creating articles devoted to fictionan characters, including sections devoted to any superhuman abilities or skills they might possess, then what's the harm of providing all the information that's known? If Marvel states how much a character can lift, or mentions that their exact level of strength is unknown, it should be included. In the Spider-Man article for instance, just about everything about him has been included but his shoe size so what's the big deal about just putting in a tiny piece of info such as how much weight he can lift? Odin&#39;s Beard
 * If you disagree, then by all means bring it up as an issue with WP:COMICS because the previous consensus was to leave the specific, numerical measurements out of these articles. Without consensus we'll have a revert/edit war by people who want them in and people who don't. Which, as I've said numerous times before, is why I started this discussion in the first place, as well as the one on Wikiproject Comics talk page. Oh and read the strength level talk page, which also seems to echo the consensus to leave these measurements out. Right now it appears we have a 3-3 (or 4-4) split on this page about which way the article should read. Psyphics 03:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Odin's Beard is right, as editors it is our job to report the information as accurately as possible, despite what a consensus says. If one does what a consensus says, then that person is not a real editor and should have no right editing this Web site. --Newseditor 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * At the same time, though, other editors in the Comics Wikiproject have set up a policy, and we are to edit in accordance with that policy. If you disagree, you can try to change the policy. --Chris Griswold 18:30, 19 May 2006

Could some of you guys please read the stingers section below to try and back me up. The fact the wrestler in friendly neighbourhood 6 and 7 and that whole other thing are linked to magic, as far as the marvel universe is concerned, is totally coincidental. As far as writing is concerned it was done to address the issue of magic, however. Would you all agree that Spider-Man has a general lack of understanding of his powers at the moment, but to say that his stingers are linked to supernatural bad guys only is irrelevant and should be removed. Sorry to put it in this section but not only do i need some support its quite closely related to the issue of his current strength. (Plus if you can stick al that copyright crap on there, when of course no copyright laws are being broken, then surely this bit can get on here!!)ChocolateRoses 00:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the lack of proper formatting, but if you go to http://www.marvel.com/universe/Spider-Man_%28Peter_Parker%29 you'll see that Marvel's official stance is that 15 tons is Spidey's old strength level. His new level is officially "unknown".
 * The "Marvel Universe" thing on Marvel.com is actually a wiki much like this one, run by fans. In any case, that's what we've got over on Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment - HKMARKS 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Higher reaction time?
Under "Enhanced physicality" it reads "...and his practical reaction time is at least a dozen times that of a normal human." Unless this is referring to some kind of reaction time I'm not familiar with, isn't it exactly the other way round? Lumpio- 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes, it would be. Newt 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, not to go off-topic, but I can just *see* Spidey with that kind of reaction time: he swings just a *bit* too late to avoid the wall....DarkMasterBob 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Spider-Man: Rock Reflections of a Superhero."
"In 1975 Marvel Comics and Lifesong Records released an album entitled, "Spider-Man: Rock Reflections of a Superhero." It contained songs of various styles altered to elucidate certain moments and feelings of Spider-Man's origin, such as "No One's Got a Crush on Peter" and "Peter Stays and the Spider-Man Goes" interspersed with small clips of narration by Stan Lee." How were these songs altered? Were they previously existing songs, now with new words? Or were these just written with Spider-Man-related lyrics? --Chris Griswold 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They're parodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:23 September 16, 2006 (talk • contribs) 72.70.233.241


 * That doesn't answer my questions. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Daily Bugle
Looking at that awesome list of affiliations reminded me that I think I saw Jameson yelling at Peter Parker to get a photo of another superhero recently. The New Avengers Annual, maybe? Any help? --Chris Griswold 12:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was Civil War part 1 --Thegtype 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Civil War part one, "I hope you're getting all this, Parker", JJJ says to Peter when Tony is spat at, at the funeral. Thats all in that issue. Why is this being discussed? I don't understand the first comment. It just seems like a statement. Is there something wrong with the affiliations? &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk
 * Whoah!!!!!! --Chris Griswold 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * sorrrrrrrrr - y... im honestly confused. im new to this. thort this board was to discuss issues and stuff.. and how do u define affiliations anyway? surely spidey has fought alongside far more people than that. PLUS if fantastic four is a previous affiliation then why is, say nightcrawler a current one?? surely spidey hangs with the FF more than nightcrawler even if he's not part of the FF? it just seems especially random. &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk

It's been changed now &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk

Age when bitten
Peter is 17 when bitten in both the original comics and the film. Ultimate Spider-Man is 15. --Chris Griswold 08:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This could be inaccurate but in a recent issue of Amazing Spider-Man, Aunt May said that he bacame Spider-Man at sixteen. --Thegtype 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * and civil war #2 says 15. jeeeez... marvel and their continuity eh? &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk

In Spider-Man: Parallel Lives it is confirmed that Spidey was 15 when bit by the spider, and this has been referenced quite a few times in different comics over the years (including Bendis' Alias) AJ

To further conclude, I believe it said in Amazing Fantasy #15 that Peter Parker was fifteen at the time of the occurences that result in his becoming Spider-Man. I may be wrong though, but it's well known that Peter was 15 when he was bitten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.233.241 (talk • contribs)
 * It didn't say in Amazing Fantasy #15, nor in any early issues. Over the years different writers have said everything from fifteen to seventeen, and possibly even older or younger.  Fifteen is the most recent number given, though, probably because Marvel wants him to be young. The prominence of the announcement (It was repeated in other books and everyone read Civil War) means it will probably be the definite number from now on.  HKMarks 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Enhanced physicality redux
Let's not start this again. Was there ever consensus about whether to put the strength from OHOTMU in the article? I can see adding most recent OHOTMU confirmed strength and stating that writers don't stick to it or some such, but just including detailed OHOTMU stats I would see as infringing on their copyright and not fair use of the information. Wikipedia, while free, is a competing source for information. --Newt 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know if any king of real consensus was ever reached, I know that a few people started enforcing their opinions and called it a consensus. As far as copyright infringment goes, how is using information published and endorsed by the company that owns the characters infringing on copyright when the articles themselves contain the same type of information?  If adding OHOTMU stats is violating copyright, then isn't copyright also being violated by even having these articles to begin with?  I mean, the articles themselves are made up of information found in various publications by the comic book companies themselves.  So, why is it alright to include that and not OHOTMU statistics?Odin&#39;s Beard


 * As I said before, Wikipedia is a source for information that could compete with the OHOTMU. If we include information directly from the OHOTMU, people will not need to buy the OHOTMU to get it, and thus we will have been detrimental to their sales. The OHOTMU is licensed by Marvel to have these stats, we are not.  Including them as raw data without any comparison or analysis is copyright infringement, at least as I understand it.  As for how we can get away with it with the comics, we are not providing entire comic books, panels and all.  People don't buy comics just for the stories, they do it for pictorially represented stories.  Providing summaries is not competition. If anything, allowing people to catch up to speed on a character or comic book would seem to enhance sales of at least ongoing comics. -- Newt 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, say for the sake of argument that, a website includes all numerous issue summaries for various comic books it isn't violating copyright at all? I'm not starting an argument or anything, but the whole thing is a bit confusing.  If there are websites that exist that provide summaries of comic book issues, then wouldn't that been seen as a detriment to the sales of that particular company?  Even without including the exact stats, most of this information in the Spider-Man article, and the other articles for that matter, been taken from Marvel sources including old and new Marvel Handbooks.  Information like the character and publication history, enemies, allies, family, and superhuman abilities are all included in the article. Given all this information can be viewed on Wikipedia for free, couldn't people come onto this site to find out all the information about the characters without purchasing the Marvel Handbooks?Odin&#39;s Beard


 * Most of the other information can be found without the handbooks, but the stats are listed only in the handbooks and through other licensed material that references the handbooks. As for complete summaries of comics, a comic book is an entirely different medium for fiction than the character biography on Wikipedia (and thus is not in competition). For the most part, these articles should be focusing on what the comics depict, not treating the character as a real person, which is what the comics do. --Newt 01:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Powers
Currently listed under powers: "ability to communicate with nearby insects, ability to heal injuries in a cocoon state". Can he communicate with insects and heal in a coccoon, or were these one-time things? Can he talk to insects or spiders?--Chris Griswold 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cocoon has happened twice to date. He can talk to insects and spiders. Hasn't used power often. But he has done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.232.133 (talk • contribs)
 * When is the second time? --Chris Griswold 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It happened once... That was my brother, probably. He sometimes comes on here and corrects stuff on occassion.Kozmik Pariah 06:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man can't talk to insects unless they talk to him first. He can only respond to certain "senetiate" insects. Spider-Man's regeneration in the cocoon was a one time thing. A chance for rebirth after he asorbed the life energy from Morlun using his newly developed spikes. Spider-Man can't asorb life enery with his spikes either. That was just a one time thing using Morlun's ability against him when he was embracing the other. 65.190.131.138 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The cocoon was explicitly stated as being a one-time thing. The I don't know about insects but I do believe that he can now use his spider-sense to talk to spiders.--wakefencer
 * "So, like, what do you think about Karl Rove getting off?"
 * "Gimme a fly."
 * Gzuckier 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Affiliations"
I honestly believe that 90% of users editing the "Affiliations" and "Previous Affiliations" categories within the character box are modifying it without regard for their total incomprehension of what the word "affiliation" means. Affiliations have to be organizations, teams, etc. that Spidey (or Peter, in the case of The Bugle) is/was a part of, and they ought to be notable at that. "The Avengers" is a notable affiliation. "The Secret Defenders" is a (maybe notable) previous affiliation. I can't think of a single individual that would qualify as an "affiliation", much less just about every "affiliation" to individuals currently listed that are either not notable, not even Spidey-related, or both (with Silver Sable, Ghost Rider, and X-Man serving as examples, repectively). - H3G3M0N 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Spider-Man is an official X-Men. He appeared in an X-Men cartoon, and an X-Men video game shows a tombstone with Peter Parker's name on it. However, I agree that these are not notable and most likely not canon.

--67.189.113.120 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they're certainly not canon. Odin&#39;s Beard 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Spider0Man is also a registered voter and urges that Pryde of the X-Men viewers also register and "tell 'em Spidey sent ya." --Chris Griswold 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive
I have archived the talk page through 20 May 2006. --Chris Griswold 05:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouble?
This isn't considered official continuity; it's not related to Peter or his parents or aunt and uncle. The wiki also states this. Shouldn't it be removed from related material at the bottom? --Kozmik_Pariah
 * Yes. I wouldn't recommend the majority of Chuck Austen's work. --Chris Griswold 09:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Trouble was by Mark Millar and the Dodsons. - SoM 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it. I admit I didn't read anything when Bill Jemas and Joe Quesad were in heat. --Chris Griswold 18:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but there's plenty to slag Austen for (exploding communion wafers, anyone?) without giving him that too. - SoM 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I just read his entry last night. --Chris Griswold 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nightcrawler is 20 in the Draco but turned 21 in his first annual? Even with retconning, that's the dumbest thing I ever read. I removed Trouble from see also, because it isn't Spider-Man related. At all. And no one said "Oh, let's keep it."--Kozmik Pariah

I re-added it because it was originally meant to be Spider-Man's new "origin", and only declared non-canon after many Spider-Man fans got worked up about it. As such, it certainly is Spider-Man related. It might be non-canon, but neither are the films, video games and TV series listed under see also. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those are about Spider-Man. Is Spider-Man actually in Trouble? --Chris Griswold 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Peter is (as a baby), but I guess you have a point there. It's been moved to one of the sub-articles anyway, which I think is fine, too. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Present tense?
Why is everything in present tense, anyway? Why speak of events that took place in stories written in the 1960s in the present tense? Even given the frozen-time aspect of comic book characters, early events in Peter Parker's life are definitely in the past.
 * I will answer this, because I brought this to the attention of the Wikiproject. It's Wikipedia policy to write about fiction in the present tense. Present tense is used when writing about fictional characters and events in order to differentiate them from real historical events. Fictional events take place outside of normal time: I can pick up Superman #75 and Superman is dying. Present tense.
 * As a comic book fan, it is hard not to write in present tense because the comics have been around so long, and comics publishers often encourage an in-world POV. But it is essential to refer to the events and characters in this way, and yes, sometimes we need to alter the sentence to make it work: "During Batman's history, four teenagers serve in succession as his youthful sidekick Robin." --Chris Griswold 00:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that policy written down somewhere? It strikes me as odd to start a section with "Peter Benjamin Parker is born to Richard Parker and his wife Mary Fitzpatrick-Parker..."  Within the character's history, this can be nothing but a past event. I can imagine expressing it in present tense if it is an entry on a timeline but in a conventional biography, even of a fictional character, it's just odd. BryanEkers 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the discussion on the WikiProject Comics talk page, and here is Guide to writing better articles. --Chris Griswold 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That said, I would think it justifiable if a character's life in fiction is begun at age 17, that one could say "[character] was born to [parents]" as an attribute of the character more than an action that's taken place in his life. --Newt 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it's a style guideline, not actually policy. It states Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Which is to say, it's possible to form consensus and change those guidelines, but you better have a good reasoning, mass consensus and good diplomatic skills. Personally I find it clumsy to write in this way, but considering my recent issues with Magneto (comics) (it's almost exclusively a history of the character from the POV inside the world, with very little else like theme analysis, impact on the literary world of comics, etc), I can see the sense as it genuinely does make the events talked about seem unreal as I suppose they should.  I don't actually agree with Manual of Style (writing about fiction) in that Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective., but I think we need a hybrid approach that includes both "in-world plot" and "out of world analysis" (such as the FA Watchmen). &mdash;  Es  tarriol  talk 08:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, you're right, it's a guideline for writing, not a strict policy, but it's pretty common in professional writing about fiction, even outside of Wikipedia. As for changing it, I doubt that's going to happen since this Wikiproject is just a small part of Wikpedia, even within it, I think you'll find that a lot of the editors are willing to write in present tense in order to maintain Wikipedia's cohesion and to obtain Featured Article status for their articles. Currently, some editors are working on Manual of Style (writing about fiction), so you can see what they're up to there. Additionally, I have begun work on a stylebook for WikiProject Comics, and I am now trying to figure out how organize it so that others can work with me. --Chris Griswold 14:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is fine to use the present tense when narrating fictional events, but not when talking about non-fictional ones. To apply it across the board is not correct. It is perfectly fine to say, "Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider when he goes to a science exhibition" but it is not correct to say "Action Comics #1 is published in October 1938." There is a distinction here you have to make between fictional and non-fictional contexts. So, when telling the actual story, yes, by all means use present tense, but for proper academic style, use past tense when speaking of publication histories, appearances and so on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely correct. Good point. I'm not sure why you seem to think you disagree with me on this. --Chris Griswold 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree. The reverts I made on Captain America were only to non-fictional contexts, e.g. "Captain America first appears in Captain America Comics #1..." was changed to "appeared", "Marvel Comics returns the character..." changed to "returned", "Captain America is briefly revived... by Atlas Comics..." to "was briefly revived". There's a mixed fictional and non-fiction bit in "In the post-war era, with the popularity of superheroes fading, Captain America appeared with Timely/Marvel's first superhero team, the All-Winners Squad, and in his own series turned his attention to criminals and Cold War Communists," which I defaulted to past tense to make it flow less awkwardly. But I left the others alone. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's EXTREMELY awkward to read character biographies when everything is written in present tense. Literary present tense is fine when discussing most books and films, or even single issues or story arcs in comics, because generally, they are self-contained works, which perpetually exist in the present for the reader. But when we're talking about serial fiction that is written throughout many different "works", over a span of decades (and is still in the middle of being written), it makes less sense to keep using present tense for a character bio. It's OK if you describe things as happening within an issue/story ("During 'No Man's Land', Poison Ivy takes up residence in Robinson Park."), but that has to be done consistently within an article, and even then, putting in lots of title & issue #s clutters up the text. I think that, for readability's sake, we should ease up on having to use present tense for comic character biographies.--SHODAN 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that support for Manual of Style (writing about fiction) indicates that things like this may be required for comic book articles soon. Things may be getting stricter, and the comics project is a minority in the great span of Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an unworkable idea for comics. The "Wolventongue", "Captain Kinkade" and "Gogosaurus" examples on the style page are written out-of-universe, but also cite specific books, episodes and video games.  That's fine if the character is limited to a few dozen canon appearances (as in a series of novels that were cranked out one per year for a decade or so, a TV series that ran for four or five seasons, or chapters in a video game series that were released every two years), but a long-running comic-book character could easily have several thousand issues in its history, so any attempt to write a nice tidy character biography gets bogged down with footnotes and cites and other crap that interrupts its tidy flow (personally, I think Spider-Man's bio could be boiled down to 200 words, tops).  As long as the word fictional appears prominently in the first sentence of the entry, I doubt any reasonably intelligent person over the age of eight is going to be fooled and if they are, they deserve it. The "present tense" stance solves a nonexistent problem, badly. BryanEkers 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to change it, take it to the editors at the WikiProject Comics talk page and the Style of Manual thing. That's where you can get that changed. --Chris Griswold 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to once I get a minute (since I seem to have got drawn up in a stub-related mess for now which is taking up far too much of my WP time...). The present tense isn't workable, and the out-of-universe thing is very awkward. - SoM 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I find the use of present tense almost unreadable. It doesn't make much sense, either.  "In-universe," these events are in the past.  Out of the universe, these were published in the past.  One cannot descrive any narrative that has internal and external continuity exlusively in the present tense - it isn't proper English.  --Chancemichaels 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Y'all should have a look at Captain Marvel (DC comics) for an example of how to write a character article using literary present. The trick is to talk about what the creators were doing rather than what the character was doing. You are absolutely correct that an in-universe biography about a character is awkward in the present tense. Frame it from the perspective of this universe, and the problem disappears. — BrianSmithson 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brian. --Chris Griswold 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wall-crawling
If this is strictly conscious, then how is amazing fantasy explained? Doesn't he jump up onto a wall instinctively? He wasn't thinking "quick lets leap on this wall"... &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk

It was his spider-sense that made him stick to the walls, so he wouldn't fall 15 feet to the ground.

New SHB image
I don't imagine it lasting long, though it does meet all but #4 of the guidelines in the most recent discussion of SHB pictures. Couple problems, it's unsourced and is not Spidey's recognized costume. It'd be nice to get a similar, sourced image of Spidey in his traditional costume. --Newt ΨΦ 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you also seen the variant cover for Civil War 2 that shows the new costume?--CyberGhostface 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Image without sources are not allowed. And do not change the picture without reasoning. T-1000 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't change it, I just noted it was changed and was a nice shot of Spidey in terms of amount of him you could see and pose. That said, I also didn't change it back when I noticed that it had been wrongfully changed. --Newt ΨΦ 12:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When I checked the article about 06:00 EST there wasn't a picture loading for the main picture. I just read an article about him revealing his idenity and it being a big deal. I decided to upload that picture since it shows him in his traditional uniform and as Peter Parker all in one shot. Plus its an important picture to the Spider-Man mythos. Lou.nunez 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not putting a HUGE spoiler in the SHB takes precidence over everything else - that's not to say that the info should be kept out the article, but it should be further down with spoilerabout tags.
 * And I thought it was just me that picture wasn't loading for - the picture exists on the server ( via ) so I don't know what's going on there. I had the same problem with a New Avengers cover last week that took hours before the site would acknowledge it.... - SoM 10:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it a spoiler if its currently published? It's been reported in the news .  How much time needs to elaspe before you consider it to not be a spoiler?  I want a picture of Spider-Man on the main page that works.  I don't know what's going on with the other picture.  I'm not going to be difficult and switch it back.  However I do not feel its a HUGE spoiler at all.  This is a link  to the picture for anyone who wants to see it.  If you agree with me please change it back.  This is the code:

image= Art by Steve McNiven. Lou.nunez 11:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * caption=Spider-Man, from Civil War #2.


 * You should look at spoiler. Really. --Chris Griswold 12:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So I looked up spoiler on Wikidictonary. It says that a spoiler is a "document, review or comment that discloses the ending or some key surprise, or twist in a story. Good netiquette dictates that one warn of spoilers before discussing them, so that readers who wish to do so may experience the surprises for themselves." Now I can understand that the picture might somehow be a surprise to someone but if the editor in chief is talking about it to whoever listen to hype up the series. The comic has been out, read and discussed. The picture in question has been posted in a bunch of newspapers and blogs, but somehow its still a secret that we're supposed to hide just in case someone might not have seen it yet. They come to the site to learn about Spider-Man if you're really concerned about spoilers you would read the comic first then read discussion later. I'm going to post it again. This is retarded. The old picture still doesn't work. 24.193.47.167 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-NPOV. T-1000 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The main picture of Spider-man above the brief outline is a spoiler and shouldn't be shown there. There are many other wonderful pictures, but unfortunetly, this one just happened to be a major plot thread of Civil War. Could this be changed by any chance?


 * It isn't a spoiler if the comic book is already out.


 * It's a spoiler if you haven't read the comic yet, whether it's out already or not. --Newt ΨΦ 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read any Spider Man comics from the 60s to the late 80s everything covering those comics should be deleted as they are also spoiler by your standard Newt. 24.193.47.167 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's saying it should be deleted, just that proper warning should be given. --Newt ΨΦ 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

THE whole issue of spoilers is obviously a tricky one. There must be some rules on it somewhere under discussions on comics, but i've always understood that it only applies to current storylines and as long as the spoiler tag is there, even images are fine to put up.&mdash; ChocolateRoses talk

I personally feel that the image used before the iron spider one was excellent; in fact, i preferred it to both the iron spider and the current image --68.5.100.199 05:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it's not the best representation of the character. Not that the Campbell drawing isn't nice, but large parts of the costume are obscured, and the anatomy's a little weird.  The Cho version resembles the "traditional" and best-known "look" of the character.  However, a picture by one of the actual current artists would be nice, instead.  Campbell's interior run hasn't started yet and Cho has only done fill-in work on Spider-Man.  (I think the Iron Spider costume should be left in the "other costumes" section for now...)  - HKMARKS 04:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, very few of the current artists have done covers with the traditional costume. But ... why that particular Cho image? It looks very odd (and IMO kind of awkward and ugly) with the background half-edited out like that. If we want a more "regular" Spidey artist from the recent past, how about Terry Dodson (http://spiderfan.org/cgi-bin/cover.pl?12312,spiderman_amazing_v2,054.jpg) or, even better, John Romita Jr, who's had two distinct runs on Amazing Spider-man?

(http://spiderfan.org/cgi-bin/cover.pl?12312,spiderman_amazing_v2,053.jpg)

The Romita Jr image looks like he's had a leg amputated...

Sense of Humor?
I've always thought Spidey's sense of humor was one of his character traits--you know, the one-liners and putdowns he hurls at enemies while battling. It's especially interesting as an extension of his spider-sense--if he doesn't have to think about fighting, he can think up clever jokes. I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article. Is it worth putting in? Dustin 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, though on several occasions the character has said he keeps up the snappy patter to cover his nervousness, which is worth mentioning. At most, give it two sentences. BryanEkers 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Note the use of yiddish, also. (Not sure if this started with Bendis or before)--Chris Griswold 14:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With JMS, actually. Also, I believe he also uses humor tactically, to annoy and anger his enemies so that they get sloppy.Tinderblast 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a metion of the "Spider-Man/Superman" comic books
There were a least one, and probably more, comic books made by DC/Marvel that featured both Spider-Man and Superman. Is there any metion, or links, of these historic novels?24.195.247.162 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * The Intercompany crossover list mentions them. However, only JLA/Avengers (which Spider-Man barely appeared in) has its own article. HKMARKS 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Love Interests & Supporting characters
I added Debra Whitman to "Love Interests" and she's been removed. By "short time" I meant "four years real time", longer than he dated Liz Allen or Betty Brant. And he only actually ever had *one* date with Marrow. She was also his major love interest in the animated series until the Black Cat and Mary Jane came on the scene. Any real reason she was removed? -- HKMARKS 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This information makes it seem much more interesting and relevent to the article. I removed it because the information you added made it seem otherwise. You know more about this character than I; please improve the article by adding what you wrote above to your earlier edit. --Chris Griswold 04:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This does make me wonder though if the Love Interests belong in this article. No other supporting characters are mentioned. Obviously not an extensive list but, say, Aunt May and J. Jonah Jameson should probably get a mention if all the girlfriends are here. -- HKMARKS 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh. Here comes Spider-Man supporting characters :) (Which I'm not so sure is a bad idea.) --Chris Griswold 23:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When I started editing, I thought I was much more inclusionist than I am. I can see a possible need for that article, but lets maybe exhaust in-article possibilities (whatever those may be) first. --Newt ΨΦ 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It already sort of exists as a category: 'Category:Spider-Man supporting characters'. Actually, the Spider-Man related categories need a clean-up.  There is also List of Characters first appearing in a Spider-Man comic series (which probably doesn't need to exist, 'Category:Spider-Man characters', and 'Category:Spider-Man villains' -- HKMARKS 00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * -I've started work on this offline. HKMARKS 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Spider-Man supporting characters -- still needs some work. Hints and details in the comments, I just don't have time to write a full article now. -- HKMARKS 03:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Love Interests section should be retitled "Supporting Cast", given a general overview, and linked to the new page. HKMARKS 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain images of Spider-Man
Does anyone know where we might be able to get public domain images of the Spider-Man character to add to this article? Also there's the phenomenon of people dressing up in costumes as Spider-Man... maybe folks might know where we can get similar images (or even make one?) to add this aspect of the Spider-Man story to the article? Thanks. Netscott 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no pictures of Spider-Man that are exactly "public domain" because he's a trademarked character. (And unlike, say, Mickey Mouse, hasn't been around long enough that the copyright on anything has expired.) Those that are used here are used under "fair use" rules.  It wouldn't be hard to get an artist to draw Spider-Man, but there's no point as we already have plenty of images under "fair use."
 * As for cosplay or Halloween costume pictures, I'm not sure that's really necessary. If you'd really like to do something with that, I'd try searching the net, finding someone with cosplay images, and email them to ask them to release their images to Wikipedia.  Do not grab/post the pictures yourself. - HKMARKS 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From Commons: GFDL image at Image:Spiderman in San Francisco.jpg--A Y Arktos\talk 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider-man's Pic
Why was Spidey's picture removed? Anyway, I reverted it back. If it was removed for a valid reason, someone inform me. 05:13, 6 July 2006 HueyFreeman
 * I have to admit, I'm also curious why there seems to be an on/off war going on about this pic. BryanEkers 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Girl
Should Spider-Girl be a part of this article? She's not Spider-Man, nor even an alternate continuity Spider-Man. --Newt ΨΦ 08:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a supporting character in her book, both in and out of costume. It's always been part of the "Spider-Man Family" of books.  It's an ongoing title (for another four days at least... though the rumors are favourable for a relaunch with a larger role for Peter).  The description should probably stay for now -- focusing on a brief description of what the book is about so people can go to its main page if they're interested. If its cancelled and stays cancelled for more than a few months, it should be moved back to the Other Continuities section. - HKMARKS 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This change: was probably not a good idea. MC2 has not been an imprint for years, and how Spider-Man came to have a daughter is probably relevant to this article. - HKMARKS 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added "originally" to the mention of MC2; you are right about that. I hope one would know how Spider-Man came to have a daughter. The "alternate future" part should take care of the rest.--Chris Griswold 06:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "I hope one would know how ..." hah, yes, in broad strokes : )  I'm still not sure about calling MC2 an imprint at all... it didn't last long, and it wasn't as separate as Icon or Epic... more of an extended "What If."  And sometimes Spider-Girl is considered "Marvel Age", or "Spider-Man Family."  I was condensing it at the same time you were, but it turned out a little differently.  I'll put in my version so it can be compared, at least. - HKMARKS 06:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say MC2 was as much an imprint as Marvel Knights or Marvel Edge. It had its own trade dress and editorial. --Chris Griswold 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I kept the Kaine part, but I do think publication history is important to address when describing a comics imprint, particularly since this title started and outlived the imprint. --Chris Griswold 06:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we've got it now.... maybe... I changed "alternate future timeline" to "alternate continuity" because at some point they decided it was actually a world where the Age of Heroes started 15 years earlier.  (Total nonsense, but anyway.)  And changed something to be less of a spoiler, + literary present tensifying.  Hope that does it.  -- HKMARKS 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Costume gallery
I added one, it was deleted. I can understand if they get unwieldy after a while, but any other particular reason? The costume section could use some images -- a picture is a lot more useful than a description. - HKMARKS 05:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * never mind. I added one to the costume section and worked the other two into the Spider-man's_powers,_abilities,_and_equipment article. -- HKMARKS 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Move "Costumes"
Move Spider-Man section to --->> Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment or Don't Move? It seems to be taking up a lot of space on this page. -- HKMARKS 02:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Move --Chris Griswold 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

-Done. I'm just not very patient. - HKMARKS 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the main page feature the Red and Gold costume somewhere? At least for the time being, it's his current costume, in his books, and Avengers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.137.160 (talk • contribs) at 16:55, July 20, 2006


 * I thought he changed back already. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still in red/gold, I guess for a couple more months. I suppose it makes sense to have his current costume somewhere in the main article.  Here are some options that are already online: Image:Ironspidey.jpg  - interior art; Image:SMCW.jpg - Civil War #3 variant cover promotional art; Image:AmazingSpider-Man530cover.jpg - ASM #530 cover.  Take your pick.  I'd add it to either the "Civil War" storyline part, or the "Powers... and costumes" part. -- HKMARKS 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added one of the above images to the costumes section, as I agree it should be in the main article, considering that it's his current costume.Jayunderscorezero 10:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup July 2006
OK, we've been doing a lot of editing and tidying over the last few weeks... what's left to be done? - HKMARKS 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Context
As the template suggests at Creation of Spider-Man, that spin-off lacks context. I propose the best way to fix this is to re-install that page's information back here on the Spider-Man page, where it first appeared, and summarizing the quoted material, placing the bulk of the quotes as footnotes. -- Tenebrae 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article needs that information also. --Chris Griswold 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I summarized the quotes/footnoted them as suggested. It's probably ready to be transferred back to Spider-Man. - HKMARKS 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also took out a bit about Goodman's reluctance to publish the character, as I think that might belong elsewhere in the Spider-Man article, and there was no source. Also, a bit about an article in Comic Book Marketplace about the story being intended for "Tales of Suspense".  The article probably exists but the claim it makes sounds a bit spurious.
 * {| border=1


 * When publisher Goodman was eventually presented with the concept, he was resistant to the unorthodox ideas of a teenage hero with a troubled personal life, but allowed the character to be used as a cover story for an anthology title, Amazing Fantasy, that was already scheduled to be canceled, so there was nothing to lose. The story was published in issue #15, and months later, sales figures indicated that the cover story was unexpectedly popular.  Goodman called for a regular series for the character.

Will Murray in Comic Book Marketplace #44, suggested that Lee originally might have been considering Spider-Man's debut for the anthology Tales of Suspense rather than Amazing Fantasy. Murray based this on the launch pattern of several Marvel characters at the time, including Thor (in Journey into Mystery), Ant-Man (in Tales to Astonish), and a solo Human Torch feature (in Strange Tales), as well as on the production numbers for individual stories. He speculated that Goodman's skepticism about the feature, and a possible attempt to revitalize Amazing Fantasy, led to Spider-Man appearing there. Although another issue of Amazing Fantasy was in production, he says, the title was cancelled to clear a space in the limited distribution schedule for another series.
 * } - HKMARKS 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Most popular
"...he has become one of the world's most popular, enduring, and recognizable superheroes" has been changed several times to remove "one of". That's simply not true: Spider-Man has not endured as long as Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman, there is no way to determine if he is more recognizable than any of them, and he may very well be less popular. Just going by Google hits, Superman gets 124 million hits (92.8 million if you don't include pages that mention Nietzsche), Batman gets over 61 million, and poor Spidey only gets 32.5 million. At least he beats poor Wondy (8,290,000). Please direct anyone who makes this edit again here. --HKMARKS 01:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I bet George Bernard Shaw gets at least 10 of those 92.8 million. :)  BryanEkers 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean it has been changed to "the most popular"? --Chris Griswold 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah --HKMARKS 04:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Navbox Guidelines
Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion. --Basique 12:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New category?
What about creating a Category:Spider-Men or Category:Spider-People for


 * 1) Spider-Girl
 * 2) Spider-Man
 * 3) Spider-Woman (Charlotte Witter)
 * 4) Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew)
 * 5) Spider-Woman (Julia Carpenter)
 * 6) Spider-Woman (Mattie Franklin)
 * 7) Ricochet (comics)
 * 8) Ben Reilly
 * 9) Kaine
 * 10) Doppelganger (comics)
 * 11) Carnage
 * 12) Venom
 * 13) Toxin (comics)
 * 14) Scream (comics)
 * 15) Araña
 * 16) Phage (comics)
 * 17) Riot (comics)
 * 18) Lasher (comics)
 * 19) Agony (comics)
 * 20) Hybrid (Venom Spawn)
 * 21) She-Venom

and any others? It just seems logical. Then you can stick the whole category in Category:Fictional characters with super strength. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know... it doesn't seem necessary. Those are all either on "Category:Spider-Man villains" or "Category:Spider-Man supporting characters" except for Julia and Jessica (who have almost no connection to Spider-Man, except that he stole the black costume design from Julia and he's on the Avengers with Jessica).  Other than Venom, the symbiotes don't really use a "spider theme" either, they just inherited his ability to stick to walls, which is why they only get a passing mention in the section on this page.  How about "Comics characters with super strength" or "Marvel Comics characters with super strength" instead?  That's a lot broader and more useful, as most of the characters not in a subcategory are comics characters.  -HKMARKS 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See, I was planning on subcategorising super strength (User:Zythe/Project) to associate various characters across different media by the nature of their power if it survives Categories for Deletion. I just tend to look at categories as ways of finding similar things... a bit like how Category:Kryptonians is useful, I thought a Spider-critters one would help. Ah well. ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

21st century spider-man - incorrect
"Peter works as a science teacher at Midtown High School until 2004, when Charlie Weiderman destroys both Peter's apartment and Aunt May's house. Because of Spider-Man's membership in the Avengers, Peter, Mary Jane, and Aunt May move into Tony Stark's Stark Tower. Peter works as Stark's assistant while again freelancing for The Daily Bugle."

He's been a teacher until the last issue of friendly neighbourhood spider-man, when he resigns. This has not yet been confirmed and as such i will not be putting that in just yet. when it is finally put in spoiler tags will be needed. for now i'll just delete the incorrect statement.88.108.127.110
 * Well, he actually did stop teaching at that time... it was summer, and he wasn't given a summer school position. I guess it's Marvel Autumn again.  It was probably correct when it was written, anyway.  But not anymore!  I love comics. --HKMARKS 00:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if it was summer then he wasn't fired was he, he was on "holiday" or "vacation" or whatever you yanks call it. Anyway the point is the article made it sound as if he was no longer a teacher, when he was. In an issue of Marvel Knights Spider-Man he lost his summer school teaching gig at Midtown High but returned for the new term and considering i doubt a year has really supposed to have gone by since he started at the school, we're probs meant to ignore that now anyway!!88.108.127.110

Robot Spider-Man - incorrect?
"It is destroyed by Ben Reilly and the Avengers. (Spider-Man Team-Up #4)" Um... there wasn't a team-up with ben reilly and the avengers in marvel team-up, so can anybody back this up at all?? Marvel team-up volume 2 was after the clone saga and i had the whole series. volume one was when peter parker was in the mask.scarlet spider/ ben reilly's spider-man was not about (or at least not thought to be about) and volume 2 is new stories, so what on earth does this refer to?? If there was a separate "spider-man team-up" and not "marvel team-up" then i apologise but i can't find one and it just seems false.editing. thanx.88.108.127.110


 * Yes there was. It was published in 1996 and here's a really negative review, in case you were wondering. And even if it wasn't there, it was still in Avengers #11. -HKMARKS 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

thankyou, i couldn't find any references to it on wikipedia88.108.127.110

Character history
If I'm not mistaken, the "Character history" is written entirely using in-universe chronology. Isn't it a good idea to avoid that, for both the purposes of WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines and WP:WAF? --Newt ΨΦ 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They're very brief and cover a lot of ground-- for instance "Starting out" and "college life" cover 120 issues in 3 paragraphs. A lot of the publication history is covered in Bibliography of Spider-Man titles and List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics and other articles on the titles.  I think helps to have extremely short summaries like this, per WP:WAF -HKMARKS 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note also, unlike a lot of other characters, Spider-Man's history has been virtually continuous since AmFan #15 -- it's never been out of print or seriously relaunched or rebooted (Crisis-style), and early issues are still relevant to current continuity. -HKMARKS 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. Should these not be cited in some way though? --Newt ΨΦ 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to come up with a good way to do it. It's tricky because the summary is in very broad strokes (and frankly, when I wrote a good chunk of it I just used the comics--or my memory of them--as source.  That's why it jumps from from the mid-70s to the mid-80s; I haven't read that stuff yet and no one's filled it in.)  It's pretty much free of POV so primary sources should be OK. -HKMARKS 19:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing myself and am glad people are already talking about it. It seems like the best way would be to note issues within the text. Like in the origin section, a phrase like "Spider-Man's origin and push into crimefighting appear in Amazing Fantasy #15." Other sections could use phrases like "The Clone Saga occurred in Amazing Spider-Man #300-312." (I don't know the actual issues). Also, I just noticed Captain Marvel (DC Comics) reads like this. Brad T. Cordeiro 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason is that the Clone Saga (for example) has its own article with a list of issues involved (Oh, if only it were just 12 issues--it's actually closer to 120) But yeah, you have a point. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS  20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Spider-mobile
I think the Spider-mobile deserves a mention. Or maybe a stub article to not clutter this even more. NickCharbuski 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It has a mention on Spider-Man's powers and equipment. -HKMARKS 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. Should've looked there NickCharbuski 02:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate
First off, Peter Parker recently revealed that he was born in January, so if someone could put that somewhere in there...and could someone get the exact date when Amazing Fantasy #15 came out?
 * Where do you propose we put this minor trivia? --Chris Griswold (  ☏  )  20:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was cover dated August, which means it probably came out in May or June. Also, yeah, that's a pretty minor detail.  Personally I don't believe it, as it conflicts with my fannish theory that he's a Pisces. -HKMarks 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Mans first unmasking
Just wondering, why back in the early days of The Amazing Spider-Man, during Stan Lees run, Doc Ock unmasks Spidey to a crowd, though they feel Peter is an imposter due to him being a "weakling". The story is much forgotten. Has it been officially retconned with the Civil War story? Wiki-newbie 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not! This story was referenced in Sensational Spider-Man 28 released last month, which detailed some of the first reactions to the public unmasking, including Doc Ock's. Civil War isn't retconning any old Marvel stories. AJ 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dancing Spidey?
I was thinking that some brief mention could be made of the animated image known as 'dancing spidey' that ciculated the internet a few years back. Perhaps mention it as an Internet Meme and mention it's origin--that is, if it's known, of course. I haven't found any info on it yet or I might. --Tsuji 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually it's easy to find information on notable memes. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough there's a new dancing Spidey doll in stores. Creeps me the *&%$ out. WesleyDodds 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Watch the language man, Children use wikipedia Irisheagle 01:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:GA nom... suggestions
I don't think only 15 inline citations is sufficient for an article this length. Plus, the 'cite' temlpates should be used. I doubt very much it will pass GA until this is sorted. The JPS talk to me  23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What things would you recommend for citations? This sort of thing is problematic for comic books, which speak for themselves. Wiki-newbie 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Books about comics. I have a copy of Comic Book Nation that I plan to thumb through to see if I can find anything useful.  Articles from magazines like Wizard and The Comics Journal would be good, too.  I'm sure we can also cite the New York Post regarding Spider-Man's unmasking.  WesleyDodds 07:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a few news articles, although I'm a bit poor with cite templates. Wiki-newbie 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's quite OK to cite a particular comic book, advising the number, complete citation, and page if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs)


 * See Captain America's footnotes, in fact.--Tenebrae 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read and follow Wiki guidelines
Please rewrite and give proper citations the Post-Civil War sectrion according to both Wikipedia guidelines and WikiProject Comics exemplar. You can't say "released Monday" -- this isn't a newspaper paper, it's an encyclopedia. Next week, next month, what does "released Monday" mean? You can't say "it has been announced" -- you need to say "So-and-so on such-and-such date announced..." and then have the footnote the full name of the source, not just a link: What magazine, what issue number/date, the title of the column or article, who wrote it. It's not right to expect other editors to rewrite your edits because you can't be bothered to look up and follow the guidelines. Sorry to sound harsh, but this is a recurring problem, and all it takes is making the same small amount of effort we're all expected to make, and to read at least the major guidelines, such as WP:DATED, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, citing sources, and WikiProject Comics/exemplars. Thanks -- Tenebrae 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Civil War section
Does anyone else think this section is getting a bit over-detailed? This is only a months-long crossover, but takes up a relatively large amount of space, complete with two sets of character quotes and such minutiae as what's on the cover of an upcoming issue.

Information like what's on an upcoming cover seems more newsy than encyclopedic, the difference being that while one of Wikipedia's benefits is that it's up-to-date, this up-to-date information needs to be integrated into the overall article, with a sense of perspective. How important, in the grand scheme of Spider-Man's career, that Jennifer Walters is stalling a lawsuit? Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to wait for an actual outcome? Tenebrae 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On it, chief! --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Someone already got it. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, oh. Suddenly I'm Perry White. (And unless you've got DVDs of the George Reeves Superman series, I'm way showing my age!) --Tenebrae 14:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA FAILED
On hold suggestions not met. See  Cbrown1023 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen
Why does it have a hyphen? Couldn't it just be Spiderman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs)
 * According to legend (and Stan Lee), they thought the name looked too much like "Superman" without it, and they didn't want people to accidentally buy the wrong book. In Amazing Spider-Man #3 (I think, or some other early issue), the letterer actually wrote "Superman" in the word balloons a couple of times. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS  00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not just legend. See this footnote in Spider-Man:

and
 * Stan Lee, 1986: "He [publisher Martin Goodman] gave me 1,000 reasons why Spider-Man would never work. Nobody likes spiders; it sounds too much like Superman..." -- Quoted in The Steve Ditko Reader by Greg Theakston (Pure Imagination, Brooklyn, NY; ISBN 1-566-85011-8), p. 12 (unnumbered)
 * Joe Simon, 1990: Lastly, the Spider-Man logo was redone and a dashing hyphen added". Simon, Joe, with Jim Simon. The Comic Book Makers (Crestwood/II, 1990) ISBN 1-887591-35-4. -- Tenebrae 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I have to say, "dashing" is probably the best description I've ever heard for a hyphen. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1995 BBC Radio 1 Spider-Man show
How come nobody has bothered to mention the 50 episode Spider-Man radio serial on BBC radio 1 back in 1995? It was a freaking great show that I actually still own on cassette tape. There was even a theme song written by Brain May of Queen fame. I dunno if anyone else will remember it, but it was excellent and for any spidey fans out there who haven't heard it, I encourage you to hunt it down. Here's some links to some info about it: http://epguides.com/AmazingSpiderMan_1995/

http://www.spiderfan.org/audio/bbc_radio/index.html

If anybody can find more stuff about it and include it in this article, it'll be a very much appreciated. Shirahime 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Character history section
Shouldn't Peter's parents coming back from the dead be included in the article? It was sort of a major arc at the time.
 * Are you sure it was a major arc? What do you mean by "major"?--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 07:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * it was major in the way all early 90s events were major. That is, a big deal at the time but now largely forgotten (really, the only events from that time people still talk about are the death of Superman and "Emerald Twilight".)  Still, it was kind of part of the set-up for the Clone Saga.  WesleyDodds 09:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maximum Carnage happened during that storyline, too... hmm... Basically, the big issue here is that the time period from the mid 70s to the mid 90s has been nearly left out, except the Alien Costume.  What about--I don't know--the Hobgoblin mystery?  The wedding?
 * Regarding the parents... if anyone has info on it, why not include it in the Richard and Mary Parker article? The section on their return is very short and might be inaccurate. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS  18:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What's a Hobgoblin mystery? Who the Hobgoblin was? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who he was (Ned Leeds? Flash Thompson?)  It was at the time, wasn't it?  I don't know, I wasn't reading it comics back then.  I guess it's not that important anymore. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS  18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a big deal when he first showed up, but when they finally revealed him as Roderick Kingsly post-Clone Saga, no one cared. WesleyDodds 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing, please add
--Jamdav86 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Publication history from 1971-present
 * Only info in this period is the titles appeared in and a short paragraph relating mainly to Other Media events
 * Character history
 * It is there, but there are gaping holes. Also much of the info belongs in Pub. history.

cleanup
The article needs its periodical checkup for copy editing stuff: tense, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, tone, uniformity of writing, etc. Articles like this that have a ton of participation need to have this done from time to get them back in shape. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
Some sections are too listified, needs some more referencing, suffers a little from recentism, but it's a good start. Work needed to bring it up to a good article, but it's close. Hiding Talk 08:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated Venom
It still had Venom listed as Eddie Brock it now includes the Update and a link to the Scorpion --Segasonicdude Sega Forever! 06:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Link at top
For Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, see Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.

This is neither a policy or a guideline - it is an humorous essay. If people want it on their user-pages or talk-pages - great, but I think it's unsuitable for an article page of an encyclopedia. --Charlesknight 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One-hundred percent agreement. It might already have been removed when I came to this page or the article page a moment ago, but I've been perplexed in the past why Wikipedia allows this blatant nonsense when trying to establish itself as a serious encyclopedia. Yes, an encyclopedia can have a certain level of humor or lightness in its article text, but the usefulness of deliberately presenting an encyclopedia as clownish is beyond me. --Tenebrae 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

main image
Should the main image be the original promotional art, or the actual cover scan?

In my opinion, it should be the original promotional art. The article is about the character, not the title Amazing Spider-Man (which has its own article); the title obscures the art, and it's of a poorer quality (it's faded and the colors are duller).

There's no problem with the promotional art, which falls under the promocomic template. --DrBat 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is now being discussed here. --DrBat 23:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up November 2006
The article is now 69 KB long. In my view, the 'Other versions of Spider-Man' and 'Other media' sections are way too long and listy. It would better to create new articles for these and focus the main information into prose, in particular Ultimate Spider-Man, the films and so on and so forth. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Spidey in Popular culture
Someone blanked out the whole section in a vandalism attack. It seems that it didn't get restored as it got buried in a ton of other reverts. I agree that seperate articles that focus on other aspects of spidey in popular media is a good idea (like was has been done for Batman). In the meantime, until someone actually creates the pages - I am restoring the entries in "Spider-man in pop culture". After all, it was originally blanked out in a vandalism attack and its removal was not discussed. --Eqdoktor 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Six Arms
How can this article be complete without at least some passing mention of the six armed Parker? at least a link to another article. 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just created Six-Armed Spider-Man to address this. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's covered in Spider-Man's powers and equipment under "Further mutations" :P ---HKMarks(T/C) 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personality?
Is personality of Spider-Man (attitude, general outlook and demeanor) covered in the article? I skimmed through it and I didn't see an apparent collection of facts on this subject. I know Spidey isn't known for this, but he does wisecrack. If I'm misjudging what this article needs I can delete this subject. thealexfish 12:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be mentioned, but there really isn't a place to put it. Tai112 10:06 22 February 2007 (Eastern)

Update to bibliography
I don't have time to do this at the moment, buuut... Spider-Man Unlimited and Marvel Team Up have been cancelled, and replaced by Spider-Man Family. This article, Bibliography of Spider-Man titles and Template:Spider-Man need an update. There's also Spider-Man and Power Pack and Spider-Man: Reign to be added to the bibliography. Good night and good luck. --HKMarks(T/C) 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Update to Powers and Abilities
How much can he press? "Enhanced strength", "Superhuman strength"....blah blah blah.....virtually every hero in Marvel and DC has this. So what?

HOW MUCH CAN HE PRESS? I remember reading once that he could press about 15 tons. The Thing 85, maybe 100. The Hulk 100+. Thor around 95. Why are these specifics left out of all the Powers and Abilities sections???


 * Because some people claim that is too much information, and doesn't belong on an encyclopedia (weird, I know), or because people think the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe isn't a good enough source, or somehow violates copyright.


 * Incidently, Spidey used to be able to ROUGHLY lift ten tons, then after his first upgrade, ROUGHLY lift 15 tons, and after that, not sure anymore. I empathize 'roughly' because that's how it was written in the 1984 or whatever dated handbooks, despite other characters being written as 'able to lift/press xx tons under optimal conditions', indicating that Spidey also possesses plot device strength which enables him to lift whatever is required for the storyline (such as him having to support the Daily Bugle building whilst trying to pull a support beam over to replace him). Sera404 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
WP:RFC Why does the trivia section keep getting removed? Information about Spiderman's height, weight, physical description, religious affiliation and even his middle name seem interesting as well as important. --Joecasual 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You can do so by either 10th button from the left on the toolbar or typing ~ at the end of your post. Larry laptop 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

mascot?
is he the mascot of marvel comics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.17.116.195 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Pretty much, yeah. :D  Virtually all Marvel Comics pre-90s all had a Spider-Man head on it, if I remember right.  Here's an example of a X-Men comic.


 * http://www.thecomicshop.com.au/site2/jpgs/comic-marvel-x-men137-vg.jpg


 * See? Spidey's head is there.  :D  Sera404 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Civil War picture
Regardless of whether it's a spoiler for a comic released seven months ago, this is an iconic image from the Civil War series and a major event for a character perpetually depicted as being especially guarded about his secret identity. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man & The Black Cat
Can someone tell me what that picture of Spidey, Cat, and Dr. Doom is from? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.10.134 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Spider-man Unlimited 14 story one (created by David Finch and C.B. Cebulski)


 * Thanks a ton!

Gwen Stacy Controversy
I added a couple of lines referring to the controversial nature of the (fairly recent) revelation that Gwen Stacy had an affair with Norman Osborne that no one knew about. A lot of people (myself included) stop buying Spider-Man stories after that, so I thought it was worth mentioning, but in a way that doesn't detract or distract from the rest of the article. Thanks!--Aylwinatrix 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for Spider-Man's Biography
Spider-Man article is getting too long, so I was thinking if Spider-Man's Fictional Biography be moved to it's own page probably something like Spider-Man's Biography. They already have something like this for Superman in History of Superman, so why can't we have a separate article for spiderman's bio. It would also avoid having to delete some parts of the bio if later it is decided to shorten the articleUDHSS 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
In December, I tagged the article with clean-up. Since then, it has grown, with a lack of reference to prose ratio and a lot of it should be spun off into clean-up. I agree with its assessment of A for comics and B for film: can't be listed as GA. Wiki-newbie 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Back in Black, S-M3 and the info box
Because of "Back in Black" and the new movie, I think (at least temporarily) we should represent this in the info box. I am aware of the hoopla with the Iron Man-spider suit. True, everyone knows the red and blues, and I agree it should be in the infobox. I think a good compromise would be the Spider-Man 3 promos where there's the original AND the black suit. Or if there's some similar image from a comic. --EXV // + @ 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh, Wikipedia does not whim to what's "current". The black suit is a temporary storyline, but Spidey is best known for red and blue. WikiNew 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The black costume is already represented within the article, no need to alter the infobox. --69.136.111.100 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CMC says we use the most representative image. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Back in Black
Anyone remember way back in Amazing #300 ("Venom") when Peter promised Mary Jane he wouldn't wear the black costume anymore because she was traumatized by Venom's appearance in her home? Is that worthy of mention concerning any future information regarding Back in Black? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.10.135 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection
My opinion might be too strong, but since the Spider-Man article is to be getting vandalized lately from anonymous users, should this page be semi-protected? -- Gman124 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Spiderman is back in his black costume................
What about the main image?Phoenix741 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People know Spidey best as red and blue. WikiNew 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ok that makes sense, but shouldn;t there be some picture of him in his black costume?Phoenix741 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and whilst you're at it could you expand the article to summarise the sub-articles? WikiNew 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please edit, for some reason it doesn't show up in the edit boxes.
There's a whole bunch of junk from a fanatic who put in obviously fake and irritating information. Cursing is also there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.225.125 (talk) So please don't curse.....It Just Shows Your Immaturity..

Somebody that knows exactly what happened...
Should post up the fate of Aunt May after getting shot in "Amazing" recently. Hell of a cliffhanger for J Mike to give us, and then my comic shop decided not to buy the next issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.231.40 (talk)

Not until the sub-article intros are expanded. WikiNew 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)