Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game)/Archive 1

Requested move 14 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Marvel's Spider-Man (video game) → Spider-Man (2018 video game) – WP:COMMONNAME. See these examples for similar situations: Spider-Man (2017 TV series), also officially "Marvel's Spider-Man", The Avengers (2012 film), officially "Marvel's The Avengers", or a multitude of Marvel television series as seen here. All are officially titled with "Marvel's" but commonly referred to without the "Marvel's". This case isn't any different. Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move. There's established precedent to omit the creator's name from the title in these cases.  ONR  (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Even the official website for Insomniac refers to it as Spider-Man.Dohvahkiin (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Marvel's" should remain, but have the "(2018 video game)" added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.98.195 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? There's only one article called Marvel's Spider-Man (video game), we only add the year if there's more then one article that goes by the same name. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support after all, it is a 2018 video game. The garmine  (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Small thing about the synopsis.
It's been said that Peter has actually already graduated college before the game's story. So 'whilst about to graduate from college' in the synopsis section is wrong. Techno Bacon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

New Image
With the Spider-Man game released in September, I think it's time we change it from the poster to the actual PS4 game cover as the game is made especially for PS4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic Moore (talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Why change something that doesn't need change at all? Ajax-x86 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Osborn resigning?
Whenever I try to remove the edit that Osborn resigned as mayor in disgrace, it is added back. Why? That should be considered an easter egg and therefore not part of the Wikipedia summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.43.10 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an easter egg, it doesn't require unlocking, it's content it's just not in a cutscene, and it's there because it establishes the world at the end of the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed text
CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section removed from the article by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references.  Baffle☿gab  09:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

From Development
(removed because: unimportant waffle) Price recalled his "fairly neutral" response, considering that Insomniac had built its reputation on developing original properties, and he had never considered working on an existing property. However, when he informed his developers, they were enthusiastic about the project.

Marvel was not interested in the game being based on an existing movie or comic book story, and gave Insomniac the choice of which character they wanted to develop for an original story. Several characters were considered, but the team chose Spider-Man, saying they related to the dynamic between the heroic Spider-Man and his everyman alter ego Peter Parker. Creative director Bryan Intihar said "I feel like he's the most relatable of the heroes. As much as I love Tony Stark, it's harder to identify with a billionaire. As much as I love Thor, it's hard to identify with a god. Peter makes mistakes, he has ups and downs in his career, his relationships, his family. I think we can all relate to that." Price said "He's so human, and he's so relatable. He's also the most popular Marvel character in the world, I think". Price also considered the logistical benefits, as Sunset Overdrive featured a dynamic traversal system that they could build upon for Spider-Man. Spider-Man became the first licensed property by Insomniac in 22 years.

 Baffle☿gab  10:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Question
Where in the infobox is MARVEL named? The reeason why I asked this is because, even though the box art shows the MARVEL logo, there is no mention of them whatsoever in the infobox. Please correct that by adding something (either in the "Developed by" or "Published by" sections of the infobox) to the likes of "Published/Developed in agreement with MARVEL Comics" or similar. Also, please correct the title, as the correct title is "MARVEL's Spider-Man". Thank you. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding an alternative name?
I recommend that, in addition to its official name, we also refer to this game as Spider-Man PS4. In a similar manner to the Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U page also recognizing the game's alternative name as Super Smash Bros. 4.

I understand that's not it's official name. But it's a shorthand name that has been officially recognize by not only fans but even the developer and publisher companies of the game.

it is also refereed to as such in numerous online news articles.

Nintnedo does not recognize the shorthand name "SSB4" for their game and yet the shorthand name is recognized in this article as "Super Smash Bros. 4". I do not see how a shorthand game's name that can be recognized by a larger company cannot be recognized by Wikipedia if there's a shorthand name not recognized by a larger company being recognized by Wikipedia. Given this I say we either recognize both names or neither.

I recommend a section like this:

Marvel's Spider-Man (Commenly reffered to as Spider-Man PS4) is an action-adventure game...

24.161.105.220 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My stance is against because it's not an official name, and in the space of the article, it's unnecessary to identify it as anything other than Spider-Man or Marvel's Spider-Man. Out on the web, adding PS4 makes sense when it's competing against three recent films and two upcoming films featuring the character. #MarvelsSpiderMan is not going to accomplish that on twitter. It's pure common sense from a marketing perspective. It's not equivalent to naming the fourth main entry in the Super Smash Bros. Series "Super Smash Bros. 4" instead of repeatedly saying "Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's acceptable to make a note saying that it's been referred to on numerous occasions as "Spider-Man PS4". God of War does this, which reads "Colloquially referred to as God of War 4 and God of War PS4", both titles backed up with sources. If the same can be done for Spider-Man I see no problem with it. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the article's title, "Spider-Man (2018 video game)" isn't the officially recognized name either, the officially recognized name is actually "MARVEL's Spider-Man". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge with the Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) page
There's no reason for it to be a separate page. This is a depicton of Spider-Man in only 1 game. There is not a page for Batman's appearance in the Arhamverse, despite that franchise being longer standing and more lore-rich than Spider-Man PS4 at the moment. We might as well create a Batman Arkhamverse page. This is also incomparable to MCU Tony Stark as Tony is much more consistent and relevant across in the 22 film franchise. Not to mention it's confusing to casual fans who may not understand the larger Marvel Multiverse. I believe the page should be merged until more Spider-Man games come out, and if we keep this new page we might as well make a Batman (Arkham Series) or Batman (Rocksteady Games) page. 2604:2000:1107:8249:857B:B1C5:91F7:EC77 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:Otherstuffexists. You're violating it. Also see Arkham Knight which is a better comparison anyway. Be my guest in creating a Arkhamverse version of Batman. But I think there is two things you don’t know. This version of Spider-Man was established as different than mainstream Spider-Men and he is part of Marvel canon now being established as that crossing over with other Spider-Men. DC has not done that with the Arkham version of Batman.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I know that very well, that's why I'm trying to debate this. compared to the Arkhamverse Batman, Rocksteady takes their time creating their own special lore through not only the games, but via tie-in comic books, which makes Arkham Batman to normal Batman as you are claiming Insomniac Spider-Man to be to normal Spider-man. To solely compare Spider-Men, Ultimate Spider-Man (Earth-12041, the 2012 cartoon) was in the Spider-Verse comic too, and also has his own special kind of interpretation as well as many deviations from the original story. Yet he is not qualified to be recognized separately by Wikipedia, as he is still the same Peter Parker, and therefore a deviant interpretation and nothing too special. This reigns true for every other Marvel character in Earth-12041 that is not original to that reality. What I'm trying to say is Insomniac Spider-Man does not deviate enough in both style, story, and overall interpretation for him to be considered separate from other Spiders, nor is he long-standing enough to be. Only his game and universe can be considered separate same way we differentiate the Arkham game series but not the Arkhamverse Batman. That article is just a synopsis of the game. 2604:2000:1107:8249:ECE6:9C8C:5010:3B4F (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ultimate cartoon version played a minor role in Spider-Verse. Unlike Insomniac’s version in Spider-Geddon. Which had plenty of coverage of about every news sources out there. Also Insomniac's Spider-Man has tie-in material. Stop comparing it to other stuff anyways. It's obvious that you are just being biased about there being an article about this incarnation of Spider-Man but not Rocksteady's Batman. Create an article about Rocksteady's Batman then. Just make sure it passes WP:GNG which I am sure it will if you do it right. Especially since there is one on Arkham Knight.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Um... Where did this accusation even come from? I thought we were discussing the legitimacy of a page, not on a Reddit forum. I brought up Batman in order to draw a comparison. The character page is redundant and unnecessary, and could easily be condensed into the game page to successfully describe the game’s depiction of Spidey and the game itself. You’re hiding behind the “Other Stuff Exists” paragraph instead of providing any reasonable argument yourself, which is a shame since other users were able to do that above the last time this was addressed. Not only that, but you are also violating the paragraph by claiming the page should exist because the Arkham Knight page exists. Ultimate cartoon Spider-Man also has tie in material, comic books in the same reality, toys, crossover, etc. I am not biased, but get a feeling you have some sort of agenda. You’ coming off as extremely immature, so if I’m going to argue this page shouldn’t exist I am no longer doing it with you. You’re not worth arguing with. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:C5 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * lol what does a reddit forum have to with this? I have never been in one. I never said this page should exist because the Arkham Knight article exists. I noted the existence of said article. I noted Wp:GNG which I feel that it applies for a reasonal arguement. Also I recall at least five editors who felt the article was fine as is. I can only think of two that wanted it merged. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t edit your comments with newly added criticisms like calling an editor seeming immature. It’s unnecessary. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I fix a typo and clarify a little thing in my reply, and you are still hovering over this talk page, and feel the need to address it and attack me over it. This is what I mean by you are immature an not worth arguing with. Why am I even replying to you now? 2604:2000:1107:8249:6985:8954:CA12:60CB (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No one's attacking you. Please assume good faith. Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit your own comments after someone has replied to it, per WP:REDACTED. You can add new comments below to clarify some of your statements. Please revert and add your comment below. On a sidenote, is not the only one "hovering over this talk page". There is a silent majority you have failed to convince. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  02:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Million Award for Spider-Man (2018 video game)
In recognition of your contributions as a major author of Spider-Man (2018 video game) and seeing this article through a review to become a Video games good article. Thanks for your work on this high-readership article! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If you wish, you can display this achievement on your user page with and. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spider-Man (Insomniac Games)
How is Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) independently notable from the video game? Why was it insufficient to cover the character in context there? Much of the split content is copied/repeated from the video game article. czar 02:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree to disagree. Some of the stuff from the video game article is probably better off on the latter. Since he appeared in other media beside video games and this article SHOULD focus on the video game and not in other media. Also there are more than just what was in the article too. The character has appeared in mainstream comic books and will have his own solo series soon. Also it should be beginning of a franchise. I know it’s mostly crystal balling that there will be a sequel but the character is already notable enough as is. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The character also had his own book first before the game. Has many page views. Is a B-Class article apparently. There is nothing wrong with having divided subjects of characters. See Joker (The Dark Knight) and Clark Kent (Smallville) in contrast to movie or series articles. Per Wp:Split and Wp:GNG I would say it’s ready. Is guarded by editors like me to help improve it if anything is needed added. If anywhere it should me merged by a different article about Spider-Man  but why when there is so many coverage on it already? Also since he isn’t the main Spider-Man but a different one.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * does have a point with his claims. Especially since some of the characters who have counterparts in the Marvel Cinematic Universe have their own pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think given the tie-in materials and reception around the character you can possibly justify a solo article, but maybe expand the reception, as I know there was a lot of positive feedback around the suit design. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You might link where those suit design reception may be? That could be useful.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly take a look later. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok cool! Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the character is notable enough to warrant a separate article. If he was just in this game I'd agree a split is unnecessary, but there's a fair amount of development information and reception (most of the latter isn't in the article yet) devoted specifically to him, and he's also starring in comics of his own. It's not uncommon for different incarnations of comic characters to get their own articles if they're discussed enough; Batman (The Dark Knight Returns) and Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) are just two examples. JOE BRO  64  16:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like way too much info for a character that only appeared in a single game (and a derivative of an existing character), but I don't usually edit character articles so maybe this is fine. However, if a lot of the information is simply recycled from the game's article, then I support a merge back there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No not everybody info is recycled. Most of the reception is either new or different info. Also there is another article attribute to as well: Spider-Geddon. It’s because he appears as an mainstream Marvel comic book character that he’s getting his own article more than being a new video game article. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

, where are we with this as it's holding up the GOCE edit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ? I'm not convinced, personally. It still reads like a retread of content that belongs in the respective media articles. You can invite more discussants to achieve better consensus if you wish. czar  01:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It could probably use a rewrite which I can help with when back to active. The consensus seems to be an unclear with a more favorable side of keep. But I really hope that it doesn’t go in the way of Darkwarriorblake’s plan to GA nonimation. If anything I don’t suggest it merged here but in a section of Alternative versions of Spider-Man if that helps from hindering his work here. But of course I am still in favor of keep. Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'm here to ask for permission in removing the merger Template at top of both articles, because I think we can all agree that the articles will remain separeted. Penguin7812 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You can boldly try it. I would recommend it since the other article is going through a DYK nomination. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm here to state that I agree, Advanced Spider-Man does not need his own whole page. 2604:2000:1107:8249:9815:E8EF:24B1:5A1 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having spotted this article in the WP:GAN queue, I'm going to chime in that I don't think the article justifies its existence at this option. There's next to no reception information to justify why this was forked (including a WhatCulture video that is only ranking characters from the game itself is perhaps the apotheosis of ref barrel-scraping.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Quit acting like the article is only content fork. Apparently you are not reading the whole thing if you think the reception is the only thing added. Or they keep adding the info that was once in the character page now on here. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can add more content and that doesn't mean it's not a fork. As is the article doesn't really justify itself from a notability standpoint separate from the video game. Just appearing in tie-in media doesn't make a character independently notable. As a side note: you should really not take this so hard. Your comments throughout these discussions seem tinged with personal animosity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well what do you expect. I helped create the article. I didn’t say anything about tie in material helping prove notability. Although him being a mainstream Marvel character now is enough to justify it along with the character is so popular he is being cosplayed over and over again. Also if there will be more video game sequels in the future that will help too. Just because he appeared in one video game with mostly the development info coming from here doesn’t mean he is not notable too. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Release year in first sentence of lede
I've seen one or two anonymous users make unconstructives edit saying something along the lines of "Spider-Man is also a 2019 game", but in all seriousness why do we need to write "Marvel's Spider-Man is a 2018 action-adventure game". It almost makes it sound as though it was only available during that year. It's also not like the game was released in the same state as 2018; it's had a lot of additional content put in across the past year. I've never seen a video game article that details the year of release right after the game's name, namely because they said when the respective game was released in the following second (perhaps third) sentence. In this case the lede for Spider-Man has its full release date in the last paragraph (which I still don't agree with but my edit to change this was reverted), owing to the fact the release year was mentioned right at the first. Is there a good reason why we can't just have one mention of the date in the second sentence akin to other article examples? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the lead should summarise the article and release doesn't come until the end of the article, and a list of platforms in the opening paragraph is not necessary nor does it convey meaningful information, and when games are often re-re-released, why does it make more sense to have a list of platforms in the opening paragraph and then a list of re-re-releases in the last paragraph or even worse, just an endless list of additional platforms and release dates in the opening paragraph. The opening sentence should summarise the game succintly and quickly, and a year helps establish an era and thus the type of game to expect. It's 4 characters. Articles, where it says "A 20XX game" and then immediately lists platforms with release dates, should be changed so that the platforms are in the third or final paragraph representing where they appear in the article and thus their low importance. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Still don't necessarily agree (primarily with including the release date twice, I just don't see the point) if only because I've seen numerous game articles on Wikipedia and this is the first time I've seen this format used for a lede. If it makes more sense, why are there no other examples that are written out the same? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because a) you've not looked hard enough because there are other articles using the same format, and b) WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't agree with having anything but the initial release date in the infobox and the initial formats because otherwise it looks incredibly messy and unprofessional, yet I have to bow down to the rules same as everyone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting; Proposed merge with Spider-Man (Insomniac Games)
I am the same user from the initial arguments as to why Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) should merge with Spider-Man (2018 video game). 6 months ago Czar requested the topic be revisited and I neglected to do so out of personal reasons. But I am here now. My point was that there are plenty of similar adaptations of characters such as Batman from the Arkhamverse titles, Spider-Man Earth-12041 as well as Iron Man (MCU). All 3 are adaptations of famous superheroes but still stand as alternative takes of the original. Only 1 has their own page. I understand I said before that Tony MCU was distinct enough to have his own page, but now I understand this may not be true, especially of Batman or other adaptations of characters don't have their own page. Insomniac Spider-Man does though.

WP:Otherstuffexists was used to justify the existence of the Spider-Man page since MCU Iron Man also existed, however it was also used to claim that the page should not merge just because Arkham Batman was merged into the Arkhamverse page. I don't understand how this can be used both ways. Also, Spider-Man PS4 crossing over to other universes in the multiverse is not enough to justify the creation of this page where others have not, plenty of AU Marvel characters crossed over and still remain sub-sections in the original character's page.

Another arguement I have against this page is that it's ultimately just a synopsis of the game itself, as opposed to being unique to Spider-Man. The narrative of the game is extremely focused on Spidey and he basically witnesses or finds out about 90% of the plot points. While a page regarding, say, Miles or Doc Oc is not something that should exist, a character page about them would in theory be better because the narrative of the game is detached enough from them to have their own page without it being a summary of the game, and reactions to their portrayal would make up for a larger percentage of the page compared to Spidey here.

Henderson suggested I create my own "Batman (Arkhamverse)" page if I am so disgruntled about him not having one, but that was never the point of my argument.

2604:2000:1107:A0DA:F188:A512:AE88:6DA9 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is not just a synopsis of this or just a synopsis at all. That fabrication needs to be put to rest. Also your In universe reason why so many others do this and that is not a good excuse. It is a notable stand alone. The others (with the maybe exception of Batman Arkhamverse) are not notable enough with significant coverage for a stand alone article. I mean for crying out loud the article was featured in the main page for a DYK hook and only failed a GA due to me being inactive. It would be nice if you stop spending your time to feel strongly about an existence of a page because it feels like like Wp:Idon'tlikeit and hopefully you as an IP editor do more than just spend time using talk pages and are actually a contributor to Wikipedia too. Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that because the character is classed as a distinct and in-canon incarnation of the character who has crossed into other media and has the occasional mini-series comic book expanding on his story/background that the article at the moment justifies itself. Batman of Batman Arkham (and I love those I've gotten two to FA status) is just Batman. It's not too many steps to the right or left of TAS Batman with the voice actor carry over and everything and it isn't identifies as a distinct character or recognized in other universes (as far as I am aware) so it's just THE Batman, while this Spider-Man is A Spider-Man (and god don't we need yet another one). Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out what I was thinking but couldn't explain. He is kind of a separate incarnation. It's canon even in the comics that he isn't the mainstream version but a different character. He also played a pretty big role as an unique Spider-Man in Marvel too. While Arkham series Batman is obviously just Batman. There can be other Spider-Men like the Ultimate Spider-Man tv series (which the IP pointed out) but I fail to see him as being notable and / or making a big impact outside of in-universe arguments too. Also noting to the IP that the last paragraph sounds harsher than I intended so I am striking it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're both correct he's a distinct incarnation but I can name plenty of other AU DC and Marvel characters that are "Distinct" in the same way PS4 Spider-Man is. So I don't believe this justifies keeping the page. Darkwarriorblake making a good point otherwise saying that, but Henderson, if that's all you can tell me before resorting to ad hominem by attacking the fact that I don't have an account on Wikipedia, that's just immature. You crossing out your childish comment to act like you never said this while claiming some pseudo-moral high ground instead of just apologizing, is against the rules, per WP:REDACTED. My argument is not a case of WP:IDL according to it's guidelines, my initial argument was that it is that the page was unnecessary due to Spider-Man PS4 not being distinct compared to other AU versions. The article being featured does not validate it anymore than if it followed format, as per Other stuff exists. You have also not explained why In-Universe is not a good excuse but you're happy to insult me unprovoked. We are discussing this, not my IP. Please stay on topic. 2604:2000:1107:A0DA:348E:A563:DEFE:400F (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn’t attack you for being an IP. I didn’t say that at all. I did no ad hominem at all. But you are doing a red herring apparently. Also telling an editor he did something “childish” is both kind of an attack and assuming bad faith. Honesty I have no hard feelings of you outside of threatening an article I created. If you disagree then ok. I respect that. I agree to dis×agree. Consider my strike as an apology for taking it the wrong way. I already explained that it shouldn’t be taking as what is sounded like. My advise is 🛑 focusing on what I should do as well and the same for me too. For our conversation should be about the article not us.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about this anymore. I tried to discuss whether or not Spider-Man PS4 and Spider-Man (Insomniac Games) should merge in a friendly manner. You however, open up with vitriol because I dared to propose against a page that you made, provide little argument riddled with personal attacks and and attempt to take credit for a different editor's argument against my case, then you spin the blame on me because I brought attention to your behavior. I said that the Character page is basically a synopsis of the game, AU characters are not distinct enough in themselves to justify a new page (While listing examples that have and have not gotten a page), your initial argument against the merge last year was inconsistent, and that the article being featured does not automatically validate it, as per Other stuff exists. You have not argued against any of these points and instead chose to talk about my status as an IP user. Again, you are not discussing in good faith because your first response after nearly 10 months is resorting to schoolyard insults to get your empty point across. Again, you have also not addressed any of the points I made with any counterpoint. I do not want to discuss this with you unless you are willing to debate the page itself rather than my contribution to Wikipedia (Which is irrelevant) but it's clear you do not. I understand that I have failed to convince the silent majority, but there is no point debating this with you. I will revisit this topic again whenever I am able. If you are there, please behave in good faith next time. 2604:2000:1107:A0DA:440:A88A:AAAC:BDD2 (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Bye then! If you come back I will be here disagreeing with you and then you will be complaining at everything I say again and using red herrings of what you and I said. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Also if you want us to stay on topic then you are doing a bad job of it. I literally just crossed out my off topic. You on the other hand kind of put more gas on the flames so to speak. Anyway you disagree with us that the article doesn’t exist. K. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Development of new Marvel pages
Hi all. With today's announcements there's some things we need to discuss. First of all, both Draft:Marvel's Spider-Man 2 and Draft:Marvel's Wolverine are being developed, feel free to contribute to them. These games, as confirmed via blogpost, are all in the same universe/franchise. So collectively speaking their development is also progressing at Draft:Marvel's Spider-Man, again feel free to contribute. That draft is going to need a new name though, any ideas? Mitchy Power (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would Wolverine be on the Spider-Man page? Is there a collective name for the Insomniac's Marvel Video Game Universe? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For the "universe"/franchise page, if Wolverine is indeed in the same universe, I'd suggest Draft:Insomniac Games' Marvel games, Draft:Marvel games produced by Insomniac Games, or something to that effect. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Insomniac refer to the both Wolverine and SM as taking place in their own "original universe" [] Mitchy Power (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what the quote is saying. It's saying they got to build a new original universe for Spider-Man and they're going to get to do the same for Wolverine. The full quote is: Being able to build a new, original universe with Spider-Man and now Wolverine is such an honor for so many of us at Insomniac Games. That doesn't read as confirmation to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Draft:List of Marvel video games produced by Insomniac Games works. — ChannelSpider (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well at the moment I don't think there even needs to be a change because Wolverine being connected to this universe is questionable I would say at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well can we agree Wolverine shouldn't be being mentioned as a spin-off here then without more information? Not sure how something can be a spin off of something it never appeared or was mentioned in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CalebPhelps99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead wording
@Darkwarriorblake; I perceive the lead as too promotional, which I had written. You reverted the edit without leaving an edit summary which violates the WP:BRD you pointed me at. Solely undoing appears to be overtly protective without intending to build consensus. I had incorporated your changes to "sequel" but I did not see your trimming of Miles Morales and re-release platforms (agreeing here). However, DLC does not follow in a series, it expands the game ("received DLC").


 * The "mythology" that is meant here is not the definition but jargon, thus warranting a link.
 * I struggle with the current wording being "better" as it reads to me like a professional guidebook rather than an encyclopedia, the trimmed version is lengthy while containing the same content. There is subjectivity here and I was being rather bold for a featured article to be fair.
 * "then-22-year history", basically their first game with an IP licensed to Sony, trim. "unique universe", reads like a product description, basically then creating a new canon. "although", WP:MOS.
 * "being named the best superhero game", by whom and is this relevant for non-fans? Basically the same as receiving "several accolades".
 * Having the PS4 platform mentioning starting the reception and legacy paragraph seems unfit and undue. It is sandwitch-ed between the reception and legacy and not really "with the others". I would put it further up as this has historically been seen as important.

I was trying to find the latest featured article about a known video game, believe this is it. Regards IgelRM (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP: BRD refers to you making a bold edit and it being reverted. I did revert your edit back to what I thought was pretty much it's status when it was nominated as an FA but I didn't realize the amount of fluff that had been snuck in there in the interim so I went back and trimmed it down. The lead is a summary of the full article so you don't have to say who named it best superhero game if it's supported by the article text. The PS4 platform is mentioned alongside the release date which is correlated with the reception because that's all part of the release. You've mentioned that it is "sandwich-ed" in there although that section deals with all the releases and some formats, whereas appending it to the end of the opening paragraph makes it seem much more unrelated when that is taking about plot. The game accomplished a number of sales and reception feats so its natural that there is discussion of that in the opening as well, it's not promotional. That said, I'm happy to work on the lead with you here if you prefer and agree on a version before putting it in the live article to save constant editing back and forth.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, edited below. Reverting a presumably good faith edit without leaving an edit summary had irked me. Calling the lead promotional was vague on my part, I think it's more of a quality issue. Does the vague "critics called" style with bunch of citations listed at the end still conform with guidelines? (more like Gamesradar+ and Venturebeat noted that) I still feel it's not relevant enough for the lead, not an award accolade in any way.

(Edit above: methodology to mythology, sorry)IgelRM (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen your message I've just not had a chance to reply yet, bear with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Page title confusion
The title of the page and the content of the page itself seem to conflict with one another. Since the content of the page refers to the full title of the game (Marvel's Spider-Man), shouldn't the page title be named as such for consistency? I have read previous move discussions regarding the page title, but I want to reiterate some points here:

1. The game is referred to by its full name in most promotional media, which is distinctive from many other Spider-Man video games or media in general. Per WP:COMMONNAME this should suffice as the appropriate title for the page.

2. Other Marvel video game titles have used the same naming format, and their current Wikipedia pages also retain said format (notable examples: Marvel's Avengers, Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel's Midnight Suns). Again, citing WP:COMMONNAME here.

3. In regards to the page content itself, there seems to be a discrepancy where the full title is used in the introductory paragraph and in the Gameplay + Plot sections, but only referred to as Spider-Man from the Development section onward. At a minimum, I believe we should reach a consensus on how to handle these inconsistent edits.

With that being said, I'd like to start (or restart) a discussion regarding this matter. you guys made move requests for this page in the past, so I'd like your inputs on this, and hopefully others as well. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @The boss 1904 Your page move has been disputed, please stop move warring at an Featured Article. As soon as it was disputed, a proper move discussion needed to be opened. -- ferret (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can continue this via WP:RMT I suppose. If you wish to keep the discussion here, I have already stated my reasons for supporting the initial move. The boss 1904 (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @The boss 1904 No, if you want to pursue this, you'll open a proper requested move here for discussion. WP:RMT is not for controversial moves, and they are not going to move through a move war protection. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)