Talk:Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse/Archive 1

Notability tag
I am inclined to agree with that it's still too soon for this article to be published in article space. Principal photography has not started (does not meet WP:NFILM), and the existing coverage is just bare-bones announcements that the film is being produced, plus speculation and non-independent teasers about the film's contents (does not meet WP:GNG). I think that either redirecting it or moving it back to draft space is appropriate. courtesy ping, signed,Rosguill talk 07:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no principal photography, it is an animated film. The equivalent for this is proof that they are actively working on the animation of the film, and we have a reliable source confirming that design work for new characters has already been completed. The film has also just received an official announcement and release date over a year after work on the film was confirmed to begin. Because of all this, I didn't even consider that my move would be seen as WP:BOLD. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would equate the design work on an animation film the equivalent of the casting process, or storyboards on a live action film. Not until they actually begin animation would be the equivalent of starting filming. Onel 5969  TT me 11:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think keeping it in draftspace until we see official animation work being done is the best route to go with this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Characters from Into the Spider-Verse 1
I think the characters from Into the Spider-Verse 1 could be returning again for this sequel so should they be added? Kohcohf (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not until they're confirmed to appear. El Millo (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok Got it. Kohcohf (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Spider-Man : Stuck In The Spider Verse" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Spider-Man : Stuck In The Spider Verse. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Excessive unnecessary navboxes
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is absurd to include multiple tables full of barely relevant links an an article. That they are hidden does make them an less excessive and unnecessary, they are bloated listcruft. It is ridiculous that before this film is even released it already contains 6 Navboxes. These barely relevant tables are nearly as long as the article when expanded, but they are of so little relevant that they are hidden by default (and that after the fact that around half of users are on mobile devices and will never see the Navboxes to begin with).

WP:NAVBOX: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article" - they are supposed to be added based on discussion and consensus, but instead they seem to be added everywhere based on little more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please try and make an effort to take relevance into account and try not add every possible Navbox indiscriminately. -- 109.79.73.171 (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:BilCat deleted the above comment with an edit summary criticizing me for not suggesting which Navbox should be deleted, rather than asking.

I'd recommend picking the one most relevant navbox and actually showing the contents (by including the parameter state=expanded ) There's really no need for two Sony Navboxes, if any, is the more specific of the two if editors actually believe either is necessary. There's no need for the three

and Spider-Man films seems like the least redundant of those three. I suggest the least worst (or most relevant) of navbox is the one for Phil Lord Christopher Miller who produced the first film. TLDR I would recommend keeping no more than the three most relevant naboxes and I'd show the contents of the most relevant one by default. -- 109.79.73.165 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is not a reason to include a navbox, it tells editors how a navbox should be formatted if it is included. Right after where it says "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional" it goes on to say "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
 * It is circular logic to suggest that just because the Navbox contains a link to a page that the page itself must include the Navbox. -- 109.79.73.165 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." and "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional" are not contradictory statements. We do not include or exclude navboxes based on how relevant we feel the navbox itself is to the article, we work out which articles should be linked together within a navbox and then include that navbox at each of those linked articles. So the question is actually "Which of these navboxes do you believe this article should not be included in?". The answer to that question, and your reasoning for the answer, should be given at the talk page of the identified navboxes rather than here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There are 2 navboxes covering Spider-Man films, along with the Sony Universe version. I'd recommend the OP go to the talk page of one of the navbox, probably the dedicated film version, and recommend merging in content from the other two. That will remove 2 navboxes, leaving 4, which is a quite reasonable number. Also, it's normal not to show the contents of any navbox when there are more than one, so I'd recommend against that. BilCat (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Have briefly semi-protected the article to reduce the flood of unsourced speculation about the title. Apologies if this affects anyone's legitimate editing. If anyone has a reliable source for the title (eg. an official announcement) then please feel free to post a link to it here, along with an edit request template. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The article probably needs full move-protection also, as I just reverted a premature move. In July, the article was moved to "Spider-Man: Stuck In The Spider Verse", so there may be a couple of more trial-balloon titles to come before an official announcement. We.can afford to wait until then, be it tomorrow or a year from now. BilCat (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Made it short term because I know little about this topic and can't tell if this latest flurry means an official announcement is imminent, or if it's just speculation. Happy to extend it if no announcement actually follows and the move/edit excitement continues.


 * As a general comment: great to see so many people looking forward to this sequel. But worth remembering that this is an encyclopedia and not a news site: we don't have to be "first with the news" on any subject and can afford to wait until credible sources are available before adding to articles. Or to put that another way: what BilCat said. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and those are good points to remember. A lot of fans are younger and/or inexperienced Wikipedians, and sometimes they don't realize that Wikipedia isn't Facebook or Reddit. I'm also looking forward to the sequel, which is why I'm watching the page. (And I'm old enough to (barely) remember The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) when it first ran on CBS!) BilCat (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it all seems in good faith. Have to say I've never seen or read a single Spiderman movie, TV show, comic, anything. Maybe I've been living in a cave my whole life. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect for a few more days? I'm pushing 3RR, and technically this isn't vandalism, so I'm trying to be careful here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

More semi-protection
Page is again semi-protected to stop people adding unsourced speculation about the title. Apologies again if this disrupts anyone's legitimate editing.

If anyone has a reliable secondary source announcing the official title, can they please post that here with an appropriate reference link. if there's consensus that the source is valid, then it can be added to the article. With a suitable level of cheeriness can I add that "reliable sources" don't include reddit, random twitter feeds, what your best friend thinks, etc. Instead, when the makers actually announce the name it will be widely reported in actual media and we will have a wealth of great sources to include on this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The daily disruptions continue. Can we get a week or two semi-protection this time? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good lord, why can't Marvel get their act together and officially announce something? Anyway, protected for another 2 weeks. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally think you should just semi-protect this article indefinitely. Would save a lotta hassle. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I prefer that too, but except for long-term disruption, the powers that be frown on that. The protection will be increased each time, so that should be adequate until an official announcement is forthcoming. Hope that will be sooner than later. BilCat (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Name confirmed
Just some minutes ago the first look was released and it was confirmed that the film will be called Spider-Man: Across the Spider Verse (Part One). Doe we change the title?? Ulises1126 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All sorted. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Part two
Should part 2 be created as well considering that they’re working on these movies simultaneously?Sheldon the God (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not enough info. Heck the only confirmed cast for Part 2 is probably Shameik because anything could happen in part 1--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, feel free to contribute to Draft:Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (Part Two). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Order of cast
So it says on the invisible note to order the actors by what it appears on the first look which has Oscar Isaac billed first, but Shameik Moore has it here first. Are we talking about the same first look (aka the first footage)? Someone reverted when I tried changing it. Iamnoahflores (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the first look cast order referring to the description of the first look YouTube video? That does list Oscar Isaac first. The times I reverted this was because it was common for us to just keep the order of the first film here and adding new actors at the bottom. I'm not sure which is the better option now though. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the first look I was talking about. I think the option with Isaac first would be best to match theirs. Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's restore it then, and if someone else reverts it we'll go back to discussing it. —El Millo (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the posters at the earliest, the film itself at the latest, will have what we truly expect (Shameik, Hailee, possibly Jake, then Oscar), but in the meantime I have no issue following what we correctly have--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible appearances of Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfields and Tom Holland as their respective Spider-Man characters.
Should we add them to the cast?? I have read possible rumors about the return of the trio, following their appearance in No Way Home. I mean Garfield and Maguire appearances were initially rumors, but in the end they appeared. But by now that, the trio return in the film remains just a rumor. Ulises1126 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:RUMOR. DonQuixote (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like, they didn't even bring their materials with them, and expect us to allow it without it, let alone with it CreecregofLife (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

(Part One) has been dropped
I would like to ask first if it's okay to move to reflect that. Both the Gizmodo and Deadline sources lack it--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already requested it at WP:RM as an uncontroversial technical request. —El Millo (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! CreecregofLife (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Has Part Two been renamed as well or is that title staying? — SirDot (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's title has been changed to Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Part II for now. Feels like this could be an Infinity War Part II situation and they will give it a new title later on. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. — SirDot (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Part Two has been renamed to Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse, apparently during Sony's CinemaCon panel, according to Deadline. You were absolutely right Adamstom, and it only took four days! — SirDot (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, working on it. We still had to deal with it how it was presented at the time after all CreecregofLife (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Billing Block
Every time I try to change the billing block, it's changed back for a reason that doesn't make sense. If I wanted to add Jason Schwartzman, who has been confirmed as The Spot, it would get removed because the person said he was not a new cast member, even though that's not true. Here's what I think we should do: either we add Schwartzman to the billing block, or we only use the billing block that was located in the first look description on YouTube. 2600:4040:12A9:5000:4526:B306:2BD4:E6AD (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As the note says, it follows the first look description block (Isaac, Moore, Steinfield), followed by returning ITSV actors who were on the billing block of ITSV. I am not sure why Issa Rae is bulleted, but could be that an RS said she is a starring member. Any additional actors, including Schwartzman, are listed in prose. Until Schwartzman is part of an official billing block (i.e. when a poster releases), he remains in prose. This is a neutral approach that has been used (except the description video) in other Marvel movies articles that were once upcoming. SirDot (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since we are basing this on what is clearly a partial cast list, I think it is fine that we add major new cast members / characters, such as Rae and Schwartzman, to the end of the billing until we get an updated one. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good way of articulating it. I agree CreecregofLife (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Spiderversemoviefinalart.jpg

New Poster
A new poster for the film has been released. You can find it in this article: https://collider.com/spider-man-across-the-spiderverse-poster-miles-morales/ Red4Smash (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The poster had already been changed. —El Millo (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Lyla
Lyla will return in this film, as confirmed by Leyla Rangel, her latin American VA, on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/CsuCFVyuOlo/) BUT that doesn't NECESSARILY confirm that Greta Lee will reprise her role even though it's very likely. So...idk if I should remove her from the cast list and place her at the bottom or just let her stay there the way it is now and MAYBE use the Instagram link as a source. 181.167.97.183 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Longest animated film in the United States
Should information about the film's long runtime be included on the top of the article? I'm unsure if it should be included or not, as it is the longest animated film made entirely in the US. Edwordo13 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources start discussing it, then yes. Otherwise it'll just be trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it for the time being since it does seem like trivia. Edwordo13 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The runtime is not reliably sourced yet. Per WP:FILMRUNTIME, theather chain websites aren't reliable sources for runtimes, so the information has been removed until we have a source such as the British Board of Film Classification or the Irish Film Classification Office. —El Millo (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see that. We'll wait until a reliable source like the BBFC to confirm the runtime. Edwordo13 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checked on the page, the runtime of the film is exactly 139 minutes and 55 seconds, close to 140 minutes 68.200.214.170 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023 (2)
In the music section, the article names various artists, one of them being Future. The page preview leads up to the article for the term "future" and not the artist. This has to be changed and link up to the artist's page. Wshbroke (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  05:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023
Brian Tyree Henry plays Jefferson MORALES, not Jefferson Davis. This is made explicit in the film. 184.144.63.71 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  10:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023 (3)
I request to edit this page, because I've read a part of this page that I would like to add more to. Jamestheawesomefool13 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Part in the cast where it says that Peggy Lu is reprising her role as Mrs. Chen from Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I wanted to add in that it's actually re-used footage from Venom: Let There Be Carnage Jamestheawesomefool13 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did it. Now Do I have to wait for you to lock it again, or... Jamestheawesomefool13 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bro, that is the wrong way of answering. You could say "what changes?" Instead of this. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023
Post Malone has an uncredited cameo as a museum goer. He has the same line “yeah I think it’s a banks” as he did in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. 108.211.45.17 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Banksy** 108.211.45.17 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  05:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Character Links
In the cast, there are links created for every character listed. All the links take you to the comic book character article of each character; except three. The links for Miles Morales/Spider-Man, Gwen Stacy/Spider-Man, and Peter B. Parker all take you to the article for the previous film, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. There is hidden text to suggest that these links should not be set up for their respective characters. For a film that represents the very diverse world of Marvel's most iconic superhero, I find it unbelievable that this article would restrict the ability to learn more about these characters in any way. These links should go to these characters instead of the previous film's page, which is already set up in the first paragraph. I believe the three character links should be restored and the hidden text removed. Having several links with the same destination should be considered sloppy and unnecessary. 2601:18D:4600:7070:0:0:0:A23F (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * So far, I have noticed I have not been taken seriously. This is incredibly unprofessional.  I was given the impression that my voice would be heard.  My desire to make a difference on Wikipedia does not seem to matter and I feel very hurt by this.  I still want my original discussion to be considered, so please let me be heard. 2601:18D:4600:8080:0:0:0:425C (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * nerd 68.49.106.140 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Spider-Punk's link just links back to Across the Spider-Verse instead of his character page. 107.201.132.103 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

First name or last name
how come several characters like Miguel are referred to by their last name? When I checked Spiderman 2099's wikipedia article he was referred by his first name? I'm not sure but don't we need consistency? HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Cast list
Why is it that the cast list links to redirects that just end up going back to this page? Isn't that counter-intuitive? 2600:1700:96F1:550:6099:6EE0:9F9:F72C (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's not useful. It should be changed. —El Millo (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023
The name of the 14-year-old animator recruited to complete the LEGO sequence of the movie is incomplete; it is merely listed as "Preston". The animator's full name is "Preston Mutanga". 100.17.18.16 (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Lemonaka‎  04:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023 (2)
Despite gwen saying this Miguel isn’t actually a vampire ninja in the movie, he has fangs because his dna is fused with spiders which have actual dna, so remove that NoKNoC (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023
Can you add that on 6/7/23 Chris topher Miller and Phil Lord said that Beyond the Spider-Verse will be the last Spider-Verse film. Spider-Pham (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC) =


 * IN THE "FUTURE" SECTION OF THE ARTICLE YOU SHOULD ADD THAT 0N 6/7/23 CHRISTOPHER MILLER AND PHIL LORD SAID IN AN INTERIVEW THAT BEYOND THE SPIDER-VERSE WILL BE THE LAST SPIDER-VERSE FILM Spider-Pham (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Kirsten Dunst archive material cameo
Kirsten Dunst returns in archive material of the upside down kiss sequence from Spider-Man (2002 film) during the "beautiful canon moments" sequence. Shouldn't that count as one of the archival cameos in this? Reliable link: https://mashable.com/article/spider-man-across-the-spider-verse-easter-eggs-tobey-maguire-andrew-garfield 70.51.64.30 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't seem reliable, and I don't recall seeing a "beautiful canon" moment from when I first watched the film on opening weekend. Edwordo13 (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cameo characters
Don't the non-vocals appearances should be removed from the Voice cast section? It can't be confirmed that all the characters in the THR article are all the characters that appeared, and in the Voice cast section should only include characters with voices. 179.228.218.198 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The section heading is not to be taken that literally, calling it "Voice cast" is just a convention for animated films as much as calling it "Cast" is a convention for live-action films and using "Cast and characters" is a convention for TV series. —El Millo (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Film Ban
I got some info that the film had been banned in Middle East, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates due to Trans Flag that appears in the Film. Happiness is Simple (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Referenced at Spider-Man:_Across_the_Spider-Verse  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023
In Plot: "Since the spider that but him came from another universe and died in Miles', Earth-42 has no Spider-Man."

Replace "but" with "bit." 2001:56A:7DE6:700:AA0D:BA01:D89C:69D9 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems it was already done. —El Millo (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Disputed Budget
An expose by Vulture about the film´s working conditions claims the budget to be 150 million as opposed to the widely reported 100 million. "Approximately 100 artists" further left the project. Worthy of a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.37 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/spider-verse-animation-four-artists-on-making-the-sequel.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.37 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I wish i could upvote this. I think it's important. 202.46.68.35 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023
Change "the film received acclaim from critics" to "the film received acclaim from critics for it's story-telling, animation styles, characters, and musical score" Roysin (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Changed to "received critical acclaim for its narrative, animation styles, characters, voice acting, and musical score". silviaASH  (inquire within)  11:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Gwen Stacy / transgender
Normally speculation and rumor about characters in films aren't something we cover (AFAIK anyways), but saw this and wondered if it didn't merit a sentence or two since it's getting traction with the wider media: CNN, Vox, IGN, Kotaku, ScreenRant, PinkNews to name a few. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say we hold off for the sake of WP:RECENCY and since, as you say, it's rumour and speculation. If it receives sustained coverage (over weeks/months), it might warrant mention, although as something decidedly non-canon and clearly based on a segment of the audience's reaction to the work, I'm not even sure with sustained coverage it would warrant inclusion. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's less of a rumor or speculation, and more of an interpretation or film (character) analysis. Could certainly be included in the "Themes and interpretations" section as many of the publications' writers discussing the fan reaction also offer their own opinions/thoughts on the matter. Could certainly be tied into the art design of the film, which features pink/blue/white as prominent during key Gwen scenes. Soulbust (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * - the "Protect Trans Kids" poster has already been mentioned to affect the release of the film in the Middle East, so I simply added that the poster is in Gwen's room. That said, I feel that it is simply speculation that Gwen is trans, unless the filmmakers say so. As CNN said, Though creators have not spoken publicly about Gwen’s gender identity, nor has the movie outright confirmed it. She could simply be a "strong trans ally". Also says CNN said, others have argued that the colors used are also the same ones used in the comics, and not necessarily a sign.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starship.paint Yes but many of the sources discussing this interpretation have more so opined (as opposed to speculated) that her arc—of telling her father about her Spider-Woman identity, being initially met with pushback, only to eventually be accepted by him—being able to be seen as an allegory for coming out as trans is still of note. The sourcing available doesn't cover this as speculation like if it's an easter egg or post-credit hint at something to come, but rather it covers this as a legitimate filmic interpretation/analysis some have. The sources Locke Cole provided already provide abundance of this discussion of this interpretation but there is also these further sources that discuss it as well. Soulbust (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * the allegory you mentioned seems to be for coming out as LGBTQ, not necessarily only coming out as trans. That said, I probably won’t oppose if you want to add such content, as long as it is noted in-text that there is no explicit mention of her being trans.  starship .paint  (exalt) 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starship.paint I think since most sources concur that it's an allegory/interpretation, it's softly implied that it's of course not necessarily canonical. But yeah, I'd make that explicit in the prose.
 * On it being an allegory for coming out as LGBTQ, not necessarily only coming out as trans... while that maybe a valid interpretation, the majority of sourcing makes it pretty explicit that the allegory is trans specific.
 * The CNN, Vox, and PinkNews sources all point to the white/blue/pink color palette used in Gwen's scenes to bring their interpretation point home. The latter source states: "Gwen and the environment around her are practically drenched in the trans Pride colours during the sequence, with many seeing the scene itself as a metaphor for coming out: In the film, Gwen is forced to hide her identity from judgemental eyes in a world where Spider-Woman is misunderstood and despised by society." Soulbust (talk)
 * Soulbust (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * - yeah so the situation Gwen is a metaphor for coming out (in general), while the colouring suggests that she is trans.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello about this part. I believe she is an allegory but I don't believe the coloring suggests she is trans herself as the color comes from her comic as well and others. She has a cis Va too ShadowSJG (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also what do you mean here: "I think since most sources concur that it's an allegory/interpretation, it's softly implied that it's of course not necessarily canonical. " ShadowSJG (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter if we disagree with the interpretation. What matters is whether or not it's baseline notable and verifiable (it is) and whether or not it's relevant. I would say it probably is, but that matter is still up for debate. Since the current text accurately describes it as an interpretation which is not officially sanctioned nor explicitly verified by the film or its creators, I support keeping it in the article for the time being and then assessing its inclusion later (I feel it should perhaps be later merged into a broader "analysis" section, as was suggested earlier in the discussion). silviaASH  (inquire within)  02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure so its only headcanon then? ShadowSJG (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Cast section
The cast section is pretty ridiculous, it's less a cast section and more of a trivia section just seemingly listing every variant of every character in the film even if they're in the background or have no speaking roles, plus stuff like this "via archival photographs from "Ascension", the third season finale of the MCU television series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., seen on newspaper clippings in Miles' and Ganke's room". You can mention her appearance but this level of directing you TO the easter egg because you otherwise won't notice it is not cast, it's just an easter egg. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Maybe there should be a separate section/sub-heading for easter eggs or other appearances?; especially for non-speaking ones. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Easter eggs should not be listed anywhere in the article, but actual cameos are fine as long as they are reliably sourced. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The cast section should just plainly read "Actor as Character", the trivia descriptors are not needed since the character's have articles.  I have never seen so much written below a cast section about non main characters (is that common on superhero film articles?) Wow.  Everything below the first paragraph could be removed.  Mike   Allen   20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to limit Cast sections to just that. These characters don't have articles, the comics characters have articles, and that is not the same. Besides, having succint descriptions next to characters is useful to readers and important to this article. The inclusions in the second and last paragraphs are relevant as there are notable actors voicing characters that are also notable, as well as connections to other franchises. This discussion is mainly regarding the third paragraph, which includes a whole bunch of non-speaking small appearances by different Spider-People, which is what should be considered trivial here. —El Millo (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A casting section with encyclopedic prose works just as well (and limits the injections of these trivial original research descriptions of characters).  Mike  Allen   21:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these descriptions could be shortened, as some details admittedly are a bit much, but most of them just need a reliable source to back the statements up, as most of the info there can just be gathered from this film and its predecessor. As a fairly recent release, this article needs a lot of work, as recent high-profile film releases tend to have too many trivial details and/or unsourced information added by fans. —El Millo (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the section would be improved by changing the minor characters and cameos to be in bulleted lists with short descriptions. I know we usually just use bullets for the main cast, but in this instance we have several big paragraphs that are just listing names. Also, the main cast list should probably be updated to match the on-screen credits. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the same though? Having a bulleted list only occupies more vertical space and is a misuse of horizontal space, and it calls more attention to each minor role. I think we should start by removing the non-vocal appearances paragraph and see what we do after that. There are also several excessive details from minor characters that we should trim. —El Millo (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the trivial "non-vocal appearances" paragraph and trimmed the other paragraphs from trivial and unsourced details. The section has been significantly reduced. —El Millo (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the edit. I'm aware that the premise of the film is that there are a whole lot of Spider-People, yet any notable appearances are already covered in the plot description. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement, there's still stuff like " Chloe Bennet appears as Daisy Johnson / Quake via archival photographs from the MCU television series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013–2020)." There's 3 mentions of "archival" in the last paragraph, and I don't see the benefit of naming the films/tv shows the footage is taken from. There is Spider-Man in film so you could just make one mention of "archival media"(?) and so on. We certainly don't need to name drop Sam Raimi or Marc Webb when referencing literally seconds of easter egg footage. And what is " Post Malone's single line as a Brooklyn bystander in Into the Spider-Verse is reused in the film"? I feel like listing people because you can hear a single line of dialogue from another film really is stretching notability to it's peak. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The notability of Malone here is because he wrote a song for the first film, but I'm not against removing that, and I thought about removing Bennett as it's not even properly visible. —El Millo (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes. —El Millo (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Much improved, good job Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the spider verse is getting delayed to 2026
Somebody add a source it's real EverestMachine 4001 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you know it's real, you surely can provide a source, as there seems not to be any confirmation of this. —El Millo (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Marvel Entertainment
I checked Marvel Entertainment and it got defunct 3 months ago, then how is it one of the production companies for this movie? Ashokkumar047 (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume the film was made before 3 months ago? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * that makes sense. Upcoming sony movies Madame web and venom 3 doesn't have Marvel Entertainment Ashokkumar047 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)