Talk:Spider-Man in film/Archive 2

conflicting Cast info
''On October 2, 2010, it was reported that the role of Mary Jane Watson had been offered to Emma Stone, while the role of Gwen Stacy had yet to be cast. On October 5, 2010, it was confirmed that the role of Gwen Stacy would go to Emma Stone. ''

This is a line in the second-last paragraph of the Spider-Man reboot (2012) section. It states that two different roles were given to the same actor to play the role of two different love interests in the film. I only came onto this page to read about a film, I know nothing about Spider-Man or its future films so if anybody knows where to get the correct info could they change this please? Dylan (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in that paragraph that is inaccurate. She was reportedly offered one role, then it was confirmed that she was cast in another. One sentence is based on a report, the other is based on a confirmation.-5- (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I read it wrong and didn't realise that the first statement was a report. Dylan (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Split?
Should info related to Spider-Man (2012 film) be included in this article since it is technically not a part of the same film series as the first three films? As of now this appears to be a case of scope creep. Or perhaps we could change the name of the article to the more suitable Spider-Man in film?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support a move to Spider-Man in film, though I would like to see it more modeled on Friday the 13th (franchise) (for films only) and not Batman in film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Spider-Man in film was exactly what I was thinking. To be more in line with Batman in film and Punisher in film. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved (by ) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man (film series) → Spider-Man in film — To properly reflect the entire scope of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support since "film series" is too limiting and implies in-universe consistency. Also broader than a "franchise" disambiguation so it can explore the background of the character in cinema without being restricted to a single studio. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly does your rationale mean - "To properly encompass the true scope of the article."? C T J F 8 3  chat 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the above discussion, Spider-Man (2012 film) is not a part of the same film series as the rest of the films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Per above reasons....helps if I read above, huh? C T J F 8 3  chat 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I should have been more clear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. As I explained above. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The reasons above are all good enough for me, especially since there's a new series of films coming up that have nothing to do with the first. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as already explained.-5- (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support considering the scope of the article. However with reference to Erik's comments above, I personally think that the Batman in film route is a much better template to follow than the Friday the 13th (franchise) one, as it focuses more on the development of bringing the character to the screen, than on the plots of the movies.  Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is not very presentable when you have a paragraph for each title, even the projects that never got produced. A better approach would be to section it by director so that all of one director's films could be covered in a cohesive manner, rather than having to save the details of a director's second film for a later section. In essence, it could be more of an overview, instead of summary sections of films or non-films lined up together. We have critical analysis for pretty much each film that can go in each individual article, but there's also critical analysis of the Batman films in general or the Batman films under a certain director. This article would be the place for that kind of analysis, and an overview approach would allow that to be included with ease. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But to my mind the Batman in film article does split by director, moreso than the Friday the 13th (franchise) article. As for the paragraph/section breaks, they do follow a chronological timeline, and allow the reader to find the point in the development they wish to read about.  The Friday 13th article does not allow this.  Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to suggest that the article could be split by director and not split by title. If readers want to know about a specific film's development, then can't they visit that film's article? An "in film" article should strive to be more than just summary sections following a splitting pattern that already occurs with each film having its own article. The article probably focuses too much on production information when it could benefit from transitional information, how it goes from this film to that film. That's not something easily derived by reading each individual film article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

infobox.
Due to this changing to a character in film article. Does this article need a infobox. Batman in film doesn't have one. And if a infobox is fine I still think we maybe need a different style on how to create them to be a little different than a film series article. More of what Spider-Man in other media has. Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think we need an infobox in the first place? An "in film" article will have items from serials to feature films to animated DTV films. It may be more worthwhile to figure out an in-body table that we can use for different categories of film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I was questioning. Like I stated before, Batman in film does fine without one. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it. It was never designed to present credits like that. While "Batman in film" may not have a table, maybe we could do a kind of "Overview" section in this article? We can have a leftmost column with the key characters, then the crew members that are listed in an average infobox. We can have four columns with values for the characters and crew members. For example, first column would have Spider-Man / Peter Parker, and we would have Tobey Maguire for three columns, then Andrew Garfield in the last one. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. I am all for it. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On another note, also due to the name I think we should include information about The Amazing Spider-Man (film) on here as well. A small inclusion maybe but still a inclusion. What do you think? Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

what's up?
How come it says that Flash Thomson is in the 3rd movie? last time I checked he wasn't D joker27 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He had a cameo during Harry Osborn's funeral, and the actor was also credited in the end credits.-5- (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Flash was in the funeral scene at the very end of the film. It was pretty brief, though. JAR Head 23:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Venom
Brian Michael Bendis (The Avengers/Alias/Powers/Ultimate Spider-Man comic writer) was involved with the Venom film in the sense that he was approached to do a draft for it sometime after The Amazing Spider-Man reboot was announced. He turned it down. He gave some interesting news on it, though. He said that the film spin-off would indeed be in-continuity with the Spider-Man film series (Most likely, the Sam Raimi films). He says that he regrets passing up on the opportunity because he doesn't see himself being a possible consultant on The Amazing Spider-Man, now because of it. Link: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=19015 JAR Head 23:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foretboy3000 (talk • contribs)

annouciation of Spiderman 4
Didn't in the 2010 Macy's New Years parade they say that Spiderman 4 was comig out in 2012 or 2014? 166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Main image
File:Spider-Man Film-1.jpg was changed by, but I changed it back. I think that the collage of Maguire and Garfield is more suitable for this article than the 2012 film's promo picture. Do others agree? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree but that's no surprise. I done a lower revision because my current version was kind of large and that helped with deleting all that unnecessary revisions. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing : Reboot Justification
Great article, but I think it needs to do a better job of answering the question, "Why the reboot?" Frankly, there will NEVER be a spiderman better than toby maguire. One has to wonder if sony pictures was being cheap or if stan lee decided to go back and do high school films or if they just didn't think they could do a big-budget sequel without Sam Raimi or if he alone was the one keeping Toby & Kirsten employed? I wish the article had more information on this critical question. SystemBuilder (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Followup : I added that Raimi purportedly went through 4 iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it". I guess if a director cannot come up with a satisfying script after a year or two, maybe Sony had no choice but to do a reboot .. SystemBuilder (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think we are off on a good start to answer the question. If there's any sources that we missed out explaining that than it's welcomed as long as it's reliable. Do you know of any other? Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Massee
I'm posting this here before any tries to start an edit war; there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest The Amazing Spider-Man's "Man in the Shadows", portrayed by Michael Massee, is Norman Osbourne. Indeed, the way the character is portrayed and his actions actually suggest him to be an altogether more mysterious character, but that's beside the point. Let's leave his name off the chart for now. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We are not supposed to know who he is yet. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Campbell in the cast and characters table
This article contains a table covering Spider-Man characters and the actors who portrayed them as well as creator Stan Lee and then for some reason, Bruce Campbell. He had cameos in all of Raimi's films, but beyond that played no one from the comics and will likely have nothing to do with the series in the future. His connection to the film has more to do with Raimi than it does the franchise. I've edited this out, and while I don't feel it was at all a contentious edit, one editor has reverted, with the justification that it's been in the article for years. Am I crazy or should this go?--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And it appears that the current version was created less than a week ago by the user I mentioned above. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same editor performing the same exact change in May, reverted here a month later. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the earlier versions, Campbell previously had individual entries for each film, which was consolidated to one line in the edits you mention above, a sensible approach if you ask me. If the table is for recurring cast and characters, then Campbell has as much right to be there as Stan Lee, as Lee's roles are also just cameos.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stan Lee created Spider-Man, meaning he's related to the franchise outside of the films, and he's had cameos in two of the three film series. Campbell has no connection to the franchise outside of cameos in one of the three series, and that is due to his friendship with Raimi, nothing more. He's the only person in the chart that isn't a character from the comics or the creator... my suggestion is to remove him. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ditkovichs, Mr. Aziz, and Rosalie Octavious are not from the comic books either.
 * Rob is right that these entries were previously three separate entries and the user who consolidated them had done it previously. When Christianster94 changed it back into three separate entries he did not explain that change, but he did still keep them in the list. Stan Lee is included in the list for his notable co-creation of Spider-Man, but his cameos in the films are shorter than Bruce Campbell's cameos. Yes, he was added to the films because he's friends with Raimi, but how does that association make them non-notable? I think Bruce Campbell's cameos should stay. Spidey  104  13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually these tables are used to demonstrate recurring characters and main cast members. It's irrelevant in the context of this table that Stan Lee is the creator of Spider-Man, as the emphasis should be on an actor or a role.  You shouldn't give special consideration to Lee just because of who he is.  Personally, I think that as both these actors have appeared in more than one of the films, albeit in cameo roles, then they should stay.  However, if Campbell's cameos go, then so should Lee's.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm not saying it's not notable, I'm saying it doesn't belong in the table - it's already noted in the section covering the Raimi series. I'm also not arguing solely against Kurt, other than to say simply having this content for a long period of time doesn't justify its continued inclusion. Finally, while I have less of an issue with Stan Lee's presence and I think his inclusion is somewhat justified, I'd be just fine removing him as well, as well as any one off, non comic related characters (like Randy Savage's Bone Saw). --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As this article is about the films, it's not to do with whether they are comic-related characters or not, it's about recurring and main characters in the films. To be honest, I don't really think Mendel Stromm belongs just because he's a comics character.  However, on balance, I think the table, as it is, has it just about right.  You can't please everyone! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I didn't say simply because someone is not from the comics they do not belong here. I said one-off characters, meaning they were bit parts unlikely to appear in any further media (making a table useless for their purposes)... but that's beside the point. My original point was that Bruce Campbell has nothing to do with the Spider-Man media franchise outside of being friends with the director of one of the series and having unrelated cameos in each of those films. He is one of two people in the table listed by his real world name, and the other is the creator of the source material, is in two of the series and is known for having cameos in films based on his material. Because of this, I do not feel that Campbell belongs in the table. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure (edit conflict) - I've requested the input of a third party. I respect the opinion of the editor in question, but I've also disagreed with him several times so I do not feel this is forum shopping. If any other editors involved wish to do the same thing by all means please do. I feel strongly that I'm correct here, but if consensus is against me so be it. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange that you chose an editor who doesn't seem to have edited the page for at least three months. You'd be better off asking at the film project page, or a more recent experienced editor like User:Jhenderson777 or User:Tenebrae. Or even User:Kurt Parker. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to be snide or assume bad faith. I very clearly spelled out my reasoning for selecting that user here and on his page, which I linked in my disclosure. I also invited you to solicit the outside advice of anyone you'd like as is both our rights per dispute resolution. The fact that you chose to do so via the film project page is your prerogative, but how I choose to proceed is mine. Further, Kurt is the one who requested I open this discussion, one would only assume that he'll join when he's available. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Campbell has cameos purely because he is friends with the director, Lee has cameos purely because he created Spider-man. Both of their cameos are inconsequential and unrelated. So, if one goes, they both should. But, I don't think you'll garner support for that, and, all in all, I'd say it was fairly notable that Bruce Campbell had a cameo in three of the films, no matter what the reason. Like I said, the balance is about right. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I never said it wasn't notable, I said it does not belong in the table. It's already in the Raimi section of the article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But he is a recurring cast member... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The table is based on characters, not cast members. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm "Cast and characters". But then, like I say, If Campbell goes, then Lee should go.  We should judge on the same criteria.  Not that I'm advocating removing either.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead column is characters and the lead row is films; the output is the person that played each character in each film; the basis is characters and films, the output is the cast who played those characters. Lee and Campbell are the only two that do not fit this formula, but again, I have less of an issue with him than I do with Campbell. That said, if you're proposing a compromise of removing both than by all means I agree. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not proposing that compromise, I'm suggesting that they need to be judged on the same criteria. At the moment, three editors seem to be advocating that they are kept, with only yourself advocating removal.  Of course this may change, but if Campbell does go, then Lee should too.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said my piece all I can at this point and it seems our interaction is taking a turn for the negative, so at this point I'm simply going to wait to see what outside editors have to say. As I've already said, while I feel I'm right I'll abide by consensus. At this point I feel that you're assuming bad faith, so I am going to step away.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should be getting involved with this, but my main concern is that there seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of what this table is designed to cover, i.e. what the inclusion criteria are. If this were a standard film article, then failing a consensus I would argue that only those names that received primary billing should be included, which would exempt Lee and Campbell. Maybe they should be mentioned in prose but not in the table. If the table is designed to cover only "significant" roles...what makes a role significant? Just some food for thought. In any case I agree that it's likely either Lee and Campbell should both be included or both excluded. Doniago (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input and involvement, and I feel you make a good point in regards to inclusion criteria... I should have researched that thoroughly before initiating discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He guys I am glad that this has been settled down. I didn't know there was a heated debate going on or I would have helped. That being said the keeping of the characters that were in cameos doesn't bother me too much. The amount of inclusions would be the main reason why I would be concerned about that and yet we can probably fix that (in the future) with having it's own article in the future as seen here. That's my two cents. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish this hadn't become nasty as well. I don't see a clear consensus (though there are certainly more 'votes' for keeping), and the user that originally reverted hasn't yet joined, but I'll respectfully retract my complaint... it isn't worth it. If someone else brings it up in the future I'll join that discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel I should apologise for assuming bad faith. I can see you're a good editor, and I must have been having a bad day.  Sorry.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No sweat Rob, we all have them. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who kinda started this discussion by my revert I apologize that I have not been present for the discussion, but this is the first time I've been back on Wikipedia since I made that edit. I'm glad things came to a solid conclusion, but I do have to disagree with Williamsburgland on his comment "I don't see a clear consensus" because he seems to be the only voice for the removal of Bruce Campbell. He has been very vocal in this discussion (I'm not saying there is anything wrong in what he did or said), but it still is him (1 / one) against the rest of us (5 / five). I think that counts as consensus, but I could be wrong. I'm not trying to restart the debate; just give it a solid conclusion since Will has already agreed to leave the information alone until something possibly resparks the debate. Kurt Parker (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As it stands both Stan Lee and Campbell should be removed; the column is called "characters", and and neither Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell are characters. It's misleading and confusing as it stands, this fanboy bollocks should be kicked into touch. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point Better (more to Campbell than Lee). Kurt - could you tell me where there are 5 editors in favor of "keep"? It seems there's you, Spidey and Rob strongly in favor of keep, myself in favor of remove, Doniago seems to be in favor of removing both (and more clearly defined criteria), Jhenderson seems on the fence erring towards keep (did I read that wrong?) and now Betty in favor of remove (though she posted after you did and would thus not be counted in your statement). For this reason I felt there was no clear consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I counted 5 in favor of keep because Doniago specifically said "either Lee and Campbell should both be included or both excluded" and I interpreted that as leaning more to keep than exclude since he didn't specifically say they should be excluded. As you said yourself "Jhenderson seems on the fence erring towards keep". So I counted the "leaning towards keep" as "keep". However, whether my interpretation of 5 for and 2 against or your interpretation of 3 for, 2 neutral, and 2 against (which I would agree is no consensus) is correct does not matter, because Wikipedia policy is that the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.
 * The status quo is that Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee are included. Kurt Parker (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable having my vote characterized in such a manner. I was waiting to see how the discussion panned out. Unfortunately it hasn't panned out in a manner that, to my mind, established more clear inclusion criteria. That said... Doniago (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did not mean to characterize your statement as a solid vote, I simply wanted to convey that I didn't see a consensus while conceding that I was in the minority. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see better defined inclusion criteria too. I've just removed Billy Connors, who wasn't even featured.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Should Lee and Campbell be included, or excluded? Doniago (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Include
 * Kurt Parker (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think my previous statement was fairly clear. Spidey  104  16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude
 * Williamsburgland (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * Neutral at this time, though I feel that either both should be included or both excluded, unless a compelling reason to include one but exclude the other is presented. Doniago (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Abstain
 * I don't feel that a simple vote is an appropriate way to resolve this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a binding vote; it's a straw poll to see where the involved parties stand. I think it's reasonably clear what your position is, but I think participation would still be helpful.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't count as a binding vote. Discussion matters. A clear vote in one direction can be overruled if there are policies or guidelines that go against the vote, but that probably won't be the case here since Kurt already showed one guideline that supports inclusion. Spidey  104  16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Venom
By now I think it's obvious the Venom film has been scrapped, if it existed in the first place. No new information has come out since 2007, and that's four years ago. It's not happening so take it off the page. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New info just came out and it will tie into The Amazing Spider-Man series. Sean 11:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

Yahoo! Movies Critics' Ratings
Should they be removed? I've checked over and over again and Googled about it, and it seems that ''Yahoo! Movies'' has taken down critics' ratings of all films on their website. The pages are available via the Internet archive, though. - Enter Movie (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction confusion
The 3rd paragraph of the intro makes mention of the fourth film in respect to the Raimi/Maguire series of films but a fourth film was never produced -- how could it have "achieved $752 million" and how could critics have given the "first two films and the fourth film positive reviews" when there was no film. Reference is not being made to the Webb/Garfield film because that's introduced in the 4th paragraph.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man (1977 film) cannot be included on this article
Why is the 1977 television film version of The Amazing Spider-Man included on this article, especially on the "Cast and characters" content? It just doesn't make any sense cause that was just a TV movie hardly any fan has even noticed or seen. This article should include only "feature films" of Spider-Man....not "TV films". Cineplex (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, it's included because it received a theatrical release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012
where it says "2012 reboot", could you instead put "Marc Webb Series"?

67.70.83.166 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good idea. Whilst Webb is the director, he was not instrumental in the development, and is more a gun for hire.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Refactored edit request.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: If you can give us a reliable source we can better consider your request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock
On 15 December, this page was protected due to vandalism. The protection expired on 25 December, and, since then, editors have consistently had to revert edits made by unregistered users. I think the page needs to be protected again (perhaps indefinitely) to prevent such vandalism. LoveWaffle (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazing Spider-Man sequel in Cast and Characters section
I was just wondering why the announced cast is not in the table yet? A note in the section says not to add it until it is in production and there is enough info the create an article on it's own. How does that have any relation to adding announced cast members? Looking at other Marvel franchises, (the X-Men and MCU), they have announced cast for Days of Future Past as well as Winter Soldier, both of which have not started production. What is the harm in having the announced cast with sources in the table? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For X-Men:DoFP there is no article and no table with the cast, so that example actually agrees with what is done here. Captain America: The Winter Soldier actually has an article of its own. Once the next Spider-Man film has an article of its own it can be added to this chart, which probably won't happen until it is much closer to production. Spidey  104  03:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where are you seeing that DoFP is not in the table in the link provided? When I go to the link, I see announced cast members. As for Winter Soldier, when I initially wrote the question, the page had not been created yet, but the cast members were still in the Marvel Cinematic Universe table. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your link is to a list, which is different than the X-Men (film series) article which is more comparable to what we are editing here. (Compare List article to an article.) The Cap article was in the incubator stage and undergoing the move process to full article when you posted your question, so that was close enough to justify its inclusion on the main article. Spidey  104  19:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics" scores
The MOS for film articles was recently changed. You can read the whole section here: MOS:FILM, but in short the section says 'There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.' Since the page is protected, I would appreciate it if another editor could remove the "Top Critics" score column from the table on the page. Thanks. 99.192.76.230 (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What about young Peter?
In a lot of pages where there are multiple actors playing the same role in a film that has more than one set time, all of the actors are listed. Reacently J Greb removed my edit. I do understand why he removed Phil Watson from the character list - he's not an important part. I basically added him, just because there is so little we know about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and I wanted to add the little we know to the list. However! I don't understand why Max Charles who played the young Peter Parker got removed from the list. It's not that he played an unimportaint part. Should I put him back in? --Oskars Čaikovskis (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with J Greb on removing Phil Watson, so I think we can forget about him.
 * I have interacted with J Greb many times in the past and he has always been a good editor. I trust in his decisions, so let's wait until he comments here before trying to add Max Charles back to the list and possibly start an edit war. My guess right now would be because Max Charles was only in a couple scenes that were less than 10 minutes of screen time. Spidey  104  20:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay. The concern I had was more Phil Watson, what amounts to a non-character. Having that added back in in addition to the child actor in the same edit was a problem. Having the child actor actually makes sense.
 * I'm also seeing a teo other concerns:
 * Conners, Octavius, Marko, and Harry: Were they called by or credited by the costume names in the films? If not, we should not be including those named in the table.
 * Is there a reason for the dearth of minor characters within the table?
 * - J Greb (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Summaries vs. Production info.
The content of the sections for the Marc Webb films and the unproduced/cancelled projects consist of info on each film's production, whereas the content of the sections for the Sam Raimi films consist of short summaries for each film. I think that these sections should all have the same type of content. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stan Lee/Bruce Campbell cameos...again
So I was not aware of this previous discussion (thanks for pointing me to it Spidey104). However, the way this info is portrayed, and how I have seen other cast tables, this info does not fit with the established format. I removed the info, because of what I have stated, but upon thinking about this, this info would be much better suited as prose below the table, than actually in it. As noted in the earlier discussion, it seems that Bruce Campbell was included in the films for his relationship with Raimi, and most likely won't be in the Webb series, and Stan Lee will be in Marvel films as long as he is still healthy enough to do so, but that is just a minor, almost gag, inclusion at this point. It also doesn't help that they aren't consistent cameos across the films and they change in each one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Each cameo had originally been listed as a separate character, so that discussion was started because someone removed the improved version of having all of the cameos as one line to the actor instead of each actor having multiple lines for the multiple cameos. I don't think anyone would support giving Campbell three lines in the chart and Stan Lee four lines in the chart so each "character" is listed separately, but I wanted to clear that before moving on.
 * Yes, the cameos are included as minor gags in the film, but cameos are important enough to have an entire Wikipedia article about them. I would support moving the information to prose below the table, but I do not support completely removing the information for the following reasons: As a co-creator of Spider-Man Stan Lee is very important to the films. I agree that Campbell was probably included in the Raimi films because of his relationship with Raimi and won't be in the Webb films, but audiences would still recognize him in all three films despite playing separate characters. Spidey  104  15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree, since making the removal edit, that complete removal is not good, as you added. I now feel that prose is the most applicable way to go, because context can also be added in prose, where we cannot get that with table cells. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone will disagree, so I'd say go ahead and make the change; add the new prose when you remove the cells so there is no confusion to other editors what you are doing. If someone disagrees we can continue the discussion here, but if you wait for more opinions you might be waiting a long time. I'd do it, but I'm too busy right now to write prose worth reading. Sorry. Spidey  104  17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Will try to get to it later tonight, if I also have the time haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014
89.243.50.164 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Batman in film which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Amy Pascal set to direct 2017's Spider-Man
Well who will play Spider-Man? Asa Butterfield? or Logan Lerman? Well when Logan Lerman and Dylan O,Brien recasted Spider-Man. MCU has no parts to play Spider-Man Will Asa Butterfield play him? And on Summer 2017 Who will return? Logan Lerman? or Dylan O,Brien?--182.191.180.146 (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Russian Scientist from Moscow
 * Pascal is producing. We don't know who's directing or who will be cast. When that information is known, we will add it to the article. Reach Out to the Truth 13:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man of Marvel Cinematic Universe
We know now officially that Tom Holland is the new actor for Spider-Man, but Marvel didn't officially confirm his appearance on other MCU films. Some sites report about test-screenings during the filming of Captain America: Civil War and Spider-Man making at least a cameo appearance there, but shouldn´t it require an official word from someone on the production team or the actor himself. CAJH (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not if it is coming from a reliable source, and they are reporting it as true rather than just a rumour. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Check for redirects when renaming sections
Basically, when you change section headers or their names, you often can break redirects, and this keeps happening on this page. Therefore, please check under what links here: external tools or [this link|http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Spider-Man_in_film] to make sure you haven't broken anything. Banak (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try and look out for this, it happened again. Banak (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

2017 film info is buried under an obscure heading
I am not a big Spider-Man fan, but I heard about the 2017 movie and was curious for more information. Googling "2017 Spiderman" led me to this article, which made sense, but then when I was looking at the Table of Contents, I couldn't figure out where info about the 2017 film might be located. Finally I ctrl-Fed the page for "2017" and found that the info is under the heading "Licensing agreement with Marvel Studios/Marvel Cinematic Universe". As someone who doesn't follow Marvel business deals, this heading means absolutely nothing to me, and it definitely doesn't mean "This is where to find info about the movie coming in 2017". I strongly encourage changing the section header to make it more clear what that section is about. 152.121.18.252 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP 152, if you see this, the heading is the best for info on the 2017 film. It is, because not only does it cover the 2017 film, it covers Holland's appearance in Captain America: Civil War and it will cover any additional appearances by Holland in other MCU films. It would not be worthwhile to have a heading for Civil War, one for the 2017 film and one for any other films, because they all stem from the licensing deal and are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Development split
I believe there is more than enough information to warrant a split here, with all the development given its own page, while the rest of the page would be more like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films or Batman in film. It wouldn't be difficult, and I would be happy to do it unless there are any major objections? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Such a split would be in keeping with the corresponding Batman discussion that concluded with a similar split. Neelix (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems completely unnecessary. This page still comfortably fits all of the information and a "film series" article for two movies would be questionable in most cases. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the split. There was no consensus to split, and all those articles did was duplicte the information here, creating a completely unneccesary WP:CONTENTFORK.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There was consensus to split, and the discussion happened last year. I have reverted the undiscussed redirection. Please start a new discussion if you wish to remerge. Neelix (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the division. I definitely feel like they can be notable enough for a stand alone article on them..but we still have a redundant content fork going on in this article. So far most of the articles and this article are saying the same info. If we are going to have these articles we need to trim this ever expanding article and reword sentences in certain part of the articles to be less redundant.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the recreation of the articles per Jhenderson's reasoning. It is just duplicate info from this article, so if the split is to happen, major clean up and redundancy control has to occur to make each worthwhile stand alones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, redirecting the articles back is not in accordance with Jhenderson's reasoning; Jhenderson argued that Spider-Man trilogy and The Amazing Spider-Man (film series) should remain separate and that the content in Spider-Man in film should be reduced. Are there any objections to following this advice? Neelix (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not from me. Let's separate. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just encourage more discussion about it instead of edit warring. Also SuperCarnivore why just revert the trilogy as an article but not the reboot series. Jhenderson 7 7 7  02:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of redundancy. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have reverted the redirect due to lack of consensus. For those in favor of the split, I suggest you use sandboxes to show how your vision of the split will not result in duplication of info and will warrant two (or three) separate articles for this content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any benefit in moving content to sandboxes. If the amount of content on Spider-Man in film is the problem, why not simply reduce that content? Neelix (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment about the sandboxes was so users could replicate what they are envisioning for the splits, without actually performing them and so other users can see their thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93. I understand your concern but there is a limit to how much you can revert. If somebody else reverts you again then I personally would recommend a merge request instead of breaking the third revert rule. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All that I am envisioning for the split is a reduction of information here and the moving of the existing content to the separate pages as has already occurred but been reverted. There isn't anything to add to a sandbox. Do you have any objections to this plan? Neelix (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you are talking to me? I feel that if we are going to have a separate article. We need to have an different approach. Maybe just create a divided section of each film series and write the plot summary of the series and maybe what's already in the lead of the split articles (with citations) to summarize the main pages. That's the only way that I could be ok with it.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the feeling everyone is taking my sandbox comment out of context. The reason I said that, is it would be helpful to some (myself included) to get a visual of what the split would look like in each place. Stating "a reduction of information here and the moving of the existing content to the separate pages as has already occurred" is vague to me, as I don't know exactly what information you want to possibly completely remove from here, and what is going to be replicated both places. That's why I was asking those in favor of the splits, to do mock ups of the splits in their sandboxes, so we can all see, comment, and agree on what should and shouldn't be split, and then we can implement any agreed upon changes to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion seems backwards to me; surely it is the quantity of coverage on these subjects that justifies the split, and the amount of content we place on each article is a matter that can be determined via regular editing. If you have strong opinions about what the resulting articles look like, feel free to draft the articles in your sandbox or implement them directly. The outline that Jhenderson777 provides sounds reasonable to me. My concern in this matter is solely that the split occur. If your concern is about what the resulting articles look like, I won't stand in your way of reshaping them. Neelix (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the split isn't necessary. So, as I've been trying to say, since your concern is to get the split to occur (as you just stated above), if I can get an idea of what you want split and how that would differ from what remains here, then I'll possibly give my support. But at this moment, the previous incarnations of the split articles are not worthy of being split off, as it is just rehashed info from here. So once I know what your version of a split is (be it in detailed "X will be split, with Y remaining or condensed" or you do a rough mock up in a sandbox) then I'll work to help perfect it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the existence of a an article is justified by the quantity and quality of available sources on the relevant topic, not the specific manner in which the article in question happens to be formatted at a given time. I would be glad to attempt to convince you that the split is justified, but giving you a draft of the article in hopes that you will deem it of sufficiently high quality seems to me to be quite an unrelated matter, and one better suited to normal editing. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be perfect in their initial form, and editors who dislike how they are formatted are expected to improve the article by way of regular editing, not by redirecting the article away and requiring the creator to do a better job before the article goes live again. You have already seen what the split article has looked like. Is there any amount of removal of content from the Spider-Man in film article that would satisfy you? Neelix (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reexamined the most recent split attempt, and I believe my concern is very valid. The resulting split page is just a copy/paste of the info here, to that page. If the split is to happen, either what you take from here results in a severe cut down of info at this page, or you have to have material ready to expand the newly split article, and leave what's here, here. So I go back to my point, if you don't have any of that material ready to go on the onset, not a "oh we'll wait and see and maybe it will be added", it is not a worthwhile split. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem unwilling to state whether or not it could ever be valid for articles under these split titles to exist. If you think that "oh we'll wait and see and maybe it will be added" is an appropriate summary of my arguments, then you have not been reading my comments fairly. The only reason the Spider-Man trilogy and The Amazing Spider-Man (film series) articles don't currently exist is because you reverted two different editors who reinstated these articles. If you had instead started a merger discussion, as took place with the Batman articles, the articles would still exist. The situation with the Batman articles is directly analogous to this one, and consensus was clearly in support of keeping those articles separate. You must see that there are more than enough sources to justify these separate articles. There is even more than enough content already on Wikipedia to build these articles, given all the content in the articles about the individual constituent films. Is your sole concern that you don't want to compile this content yourself? I would be glad to do it, but I won't do it behind closed doors in a sandbox under the threat that you have to give your personal approval on quality before the articles go live, especially considering that your comments have strongly suggested that you won't be satisfied with the resulting articles no matter what they look like. Are you willing to work together in building this content in the main space? I'm not going away and you don't seem like you are either, so surely our time would be better spent collaborating on the content in the main space rather than talking in circles on this talk page. Neelix (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my concern isn't that I don't want to compile this content. Obviously, since I'm not really for the split currently, I'm not going to be inclined to pull material for it (and I'm tied up with other projects on this site to not dedicate time to this). I feel the split can have some merit, but as I've stated, as has been done previously, there is no merit in the split resulting in this. And you said "There is even more than enough content already on Wikipedia to build these articles", but you have still not stated what information you would pull, and/or any existing articles you might try to replicate for a format. That is why I've encouraged using a sandbox or draft space to rebuild the split articles so we can get a good collaboration going to making these articles in a way that is acceptable for mainspace. And then once we feel we have a good foundation in what was created, that can enter the mainspace and hopefully continue to get better. Because right now, it seems that we are just thinking that we have to go back to the previous split versions created, which are not helping this cause. It is also incorrect for you to think you would be "under threat" (no one is threatening anyone here) for using the sandbox/draft. So in summary, if you find the additional info you'd like to add to the split content, and/or suggest to me a layout for the page, I'll help you format it. And I do encourage the use of the sandbox/draft, so we can see each other's thoughts and discuss any questions, but it's not the end of the world. If you go straight to editing the mainspace, I just hope it is with new content to the split article and/or reduction of repetitive material here, because in all of this, that's my biggest issue with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the split again, because there is no consensus here for a split, and all it does is create a WP:CONTENTFORK. I would suggest that any further attempt should be preceded by adding the correct Split section tag to the article, so that readers and editors know that a discussion is taking place, and a formal discussion is started, perhaps an RFC, and the relevant projects are notified. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Do characters played by one actor in one film belong in the cast table on this page?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe article clarifies "Recurring", which would probably be more useful/interesting to readers of this article as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking of mentioning this. At least for this table I think it may make sense to only include those who have appeared in multiple films. Not to mention we definitely should not have any "Mentioned Only" or 'deleted scenes' listings. This table should be for the significant cast members in the actual films. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating new page for Spider-Man: Homecoming
With more details coming from Marvel Studios about the upcoming new Spider-Man film, I believe there is enough to create a separate page for the new movie rather than have it redirect to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WuTang94 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Already being created at Draft:Spider-Man: Homecoming. Articles about films that have not begun filming are not allowed to have mainspace articles, per WP:NFF. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WuTang94, you are definitely welcome to contribute to said draft page. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cite does not say what editor claims
User:Burningblue52 is edit warring over a claim that director Sam Raimi "revealed" something about the films, and he cites it to Comicbookmovie.com, which I'm not sure is a reliable source. In any event, the information does not come from there but from io9, which Comicbookmovie.com even says, and it is not Sam Raimi saying this but some unidentified person named Jeffrey Henderson. Unless we have Sam Raimi saying something, we can't claim Sam Raimi said something. Also, he is removing RS-cited information about a clearly significant step taken and then discarded during the creative process — contemplation about the creation of an original-for-the-movies character.-- Tenebrae (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * CBM isn't a reliable source and Burningblue knows this, having been around enough. That said, don't really know what else has to be added regarding the concept art reveal. I felt I covered all the relevant parts with this edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Max Charles
Isn't Max Charles notable enough to mention? He played Young Peter Parker in BOTH of Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man films. That's a recurring role. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Stacy Family
Every actor who played members of Gwendolyn "Gwen" Stacy's family appeared in BOTH of Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man films. These are recurring roles. Should they not be mentioned?- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * They may have been recurring in two movies, but they were extremely minor roles. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't the section be called "Major Recurring Characters"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Or possibly we can use reasonable judgment not reliant on literalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

and also there is no distributed by Sony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C610:6031:F52C:AAE6:2B58:5714 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Venom
How come the Venom stand-alone movie and potential franchise starting development don't have their own category in this article? It is said that the movie would not be related to the original Spider-Man trilogy, the two Amazing Spider-Man movies, nor the Marvel Cinematic Universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cineplex (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about Spider-Man in film, not Venom in film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

MCU characters in recurring table
In order to keep this table compact and in the scope of this article, I propose the following parameters in regards to the MCU films and characters. The only characters that should appear in the table are ones that also appear (or will appear) in a Spider-Man specific film. What I mean by this is, Civil War and Infinity War are not "Spider-Man films". Spider-Man appears in both, yes, but it is not a dedicated film to the character like Homecoming is. Not only does this help with the scope of the article, it reduces redundancy to the more indepth table at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. With this, the actors to appear in the table (so far) would be Holland, Tomei and Downey. Actors who should not be included at this time are Cap/Evans, Hawkeye/Renner, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something about this as well. That criteria sounds like it will work for now, but we may need to get it to just "Spider-Man characters" somehow in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this can work for a while, given we only have Homecoming and its sequel announced so far. I'm going to put notes in this section stating this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Venom
Is the new Venom part of the MCU? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At this time, no it is not and does not seem like it will be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it shouldn't be included on this article at this time, because there is no indication that Spider-Man will be a part of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Venom + Edit warring
1. This article is about Spider-Man in film. (Honestly took me a second of gray matter usage to agree with Favre1fan93 there.) 2. There is no haste to add the info right now, is there? Read the relevant policies regarding what Wikipedia is and is not. 3. You are currently edit warring, even after a good enough rational. Stop. Thank you.

 LoMS  talk   23:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Venom and Black Cat/Silver Sable movie
Columbia Pictures announced Venom to come out on October 5, 2018. One week later, the studio announced an untitled movie about Black Cat and Silver Sable with no release date yet. I get they're not on this article because it's "all about Spider-Man" yet these are Spidey-related characters. If the untitled animated Spider-Man movie is on here, why not these two? Before the BC/SS movie announcement, I tried to give the article a new category called "Standalone films" because the Venom, animated, and BC/SS movies are not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, yet it's just "Animation" again. Why? And besides, you never know, Venom and the BC/SS movies could become a cinematic universe of Spidey-related characters minus Spider-Man! - Cineplex (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get your argument for not including the animated film. It is about Spider-Man, so it fully fits within the scope of this article. A film doesn't have to be solely live-action, or a part of a greater connected universe to be included: they just have to feature Spider-Man. If either Venom or the Black Cat/Silver Sable end up having Spider-Man connections, they will be added here. If not and are completely separate (as it seems at this time), they will not be added here. However, links to the films could be included in the "See also" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Years
Do we really need to include the year next to the films names in the section titles? It makes sense with some films with repeated names (such as "Spider-Man" or "The amazing spider-man"), but other films have unique names, such as "Spider-Man 3" or "Spider-man: Homecoming". Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is helpful to have the years in the section headers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Civil War
Captain America: Civil War should not be considered a Spider-Man film. Especially not in the box office section. Just like how Civil War isn't considered an Iron Man movie or anything else. 86.185.224.254 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not including Civil War in the reception section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Drafts
Wasn't sure whether this was the best place for this or not, but there may be editors here interested in these pages, so this is just a notice that there is a draft for a potential Sony's Marvel Universe article at Draft:Sony's Marvel Universe. There are also drafts for Venom at Draft:Venom (2018 film) and Silver & Black at Draft:Silver & Black (film). All are welcome to come help nurture the articles' development. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Iron Man 2
Should we include the kid from Iron Man 2 in the characters table? Let's be clear, it's just a 2 seconds character, wearing an Iron Man film. Nowhere in the original film it was stated, or even suggested, that this boy was Peter Parker (or was even named in the film); we are only supposed to accept that because someone said it, several years after the film. I understand that perhaps it may be justified to be mentioned in text, but in the table? The idea is to keep there only the main characters, not all characters who have ever appeared. And I think that should apply to Spider-Man himself. If he's not a main character, he shouldn't be listed. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Licensing agreement with Marvel Studios
This section seems to lack some context for the negotiations. At one sentence, Sony refused to work with Marvel, then they accept, and that's it. Wasn't there any explanation? Didn't Sony explain why did they broke negotiations? Why did they start them again? What did they negotiate? Why did Sony finally accepted the deal? --Cambalachero (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Venom is a character.
@Favre1fan93: The Venom Symbiote has been widely established as a sentient alien life form in both the Marvel Comics Universe and the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man films. Topher Grace may have primarily played Eddie Brock in Spider-Man 3, but he also voiced the Venom symbiote briefly, in one scene in which the Symbiote and Brock confront Flint Marko. The Venom Symbiote may not have had an actor in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but the character still did appear, and that is noteworthy. Georgina V Hobart (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, don't misquote what the table actually reads for your own benefit. The table reads "This table only includes 'characters which have appeared in multiple "franchises" of Spider-Man film.", nothing to do with the actors themselves; if we were counting recurring actors then Michael Papajohn in The Amazing Spider-Man would have been mentioned on the list. Georgina V Hobart (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you have to admit, the cast table is getting too wide to read at its current font size. Georgina V Hobart (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fictional biology aside, from a real world perspective the character Venom is the man Eddie Brock with the black suit and the powers of Spider-Man. The symbiote is just an aspect of that character, just like Captain America's shield, or Thor's hammer. A thing strongly associated with a certain character, but not a character in itself. If it was never developed as an independent and stand-alone character, then it does not matter if it is "sentient" in-story. --Cambalachero (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't repeat what Cambalachero said perfectly about the Symbiote. Additionally, yes the table says "character which have appeared in multiple..." but it is trivial in nature to make mention of "appearances" without an actor portrayal. And regardless, this is all tied together, because the Symbiote shouldn't be listed independently so an "appearance" without an actor is mute. Also, please see MOS:FONTSIZE. Small font should be used sparingly, as it presents an WP:ACCESS issue. If the table is getting too large at 100% span, and normal text size, then it should be discussed alternatives to help shrink it before we reduce text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * About the table size, perhaps we can split it into smaller tables for each franchise: the 1970s, Sam Raimi, Marc Webb and the MCU. That way, we could make it less wide, and skip the large grey areas that we are leaving now for all those characters used in one or two films in the whole cinematic history.
 * Also, perhaps we should refine the rationale for inclusion. With the current one, we are including minor characters such as Flash Thomson, Betty Brant and Prowler (who's not even called that way, but just Aaron Davis), and leaving out main characters such as Alfred Molina's Dr. Octopus and Michael Keaton's Vulture. If the current rules lead to this, perhaps we should review the rules. Cambalachero (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this is Spider-Man in film, but does the cast table have to include every film that Spider-Man appears in? Would we be able to limit the cast table to actual Spider-Man films? That could make it more manageable. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be fine removing Civil War and the two Avengers films from the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Venom part of Spider-Man film-franchise?
@Favre1fan93, @adamstom97, @Betty Logan: Hi Guys, I'd like to get your thoughts on the following: in the "List of highest-grossing films and franchises" Venom has been added as the 7th installment in the Spider-Man film-franchise. I have expressed my concerns about this addition on Venom's Talk-page, however the film was added. The franchise has now jumped from 11th to 8th (surpassing $5 billion) and the "Spider-Man in film"-article is now incorrect. However, updating the "Spider-Man in film"-article with a film without Spider-Man seems somewhat inconsistent to me. What to do? Any thoughts? Cheers! SassyCollins (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the way we've been approaching it, with not having it here and trying to stick to films that are actually about Spider-Man, it probably makes sense to not include Venom at the box office list either. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That list usually counts “extensions” too. Like the film spinoffs ‘’Catwoman’’ or ‘’Supergirl’’. I remember even complaining about Catwoman being on there. Let’s face it Venom is a Spider-Man inspired franchise. It might not need to be in this article but it’s clearly a spinoff. I personally think of Venom as like the Donkey Kong of the Mario franchise.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Should Stan Lee be in the Recurring Characters list?
He does play himself in Marvel movies, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.219.18 (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No - he always does cameos, playing a different character each time. The audience knows it's him, but he's not playing himself. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes

 * The screenwriter for Kraven the Hunter has stated that Spider-Man will definitely be in the film.


 * Max Charles and Max Favreau portrayed a young Peter Parker in the The Amazing Spider-Man series and the Marvel Cinematic Universe.


 * Putting years below the film titles in the cast table is what all cast tables do.

These additions have been removed with no reason given but "restore". Restore to what? Why are you removing this? 89.101.219.18 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Kraven is hopeful, not definite. Young actors should not be noted. They are not the "main" actors to portray the characters. Years aren't really needed here and WP:OSE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not having any of the proposed changes on the character table just makes it look like another generic MCU table. The TV, Raimi and Webb films don't have to be laid out like they're a part of a film universe which they are not. I propose we at least add the years and young actors seeing how Spiderman's first technical appearance in the MCU was in Iron Man 2 in 2010. The Webb films are currently listed before the MCU as if he appeared afterwards when in reality, he appeared 6 years before his debut in Civil War... either that or a List of Spider-man films cast members article be created seeing how there's too many Spider-man-focused films coming out in recent years and how a similar article exists for DC's flagship character, Batman. Zucat (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad I'm not alone on this. Could you do this? 89.101.219.18 (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The cast table isn't laid out like a film universe, I don't know how you're getting that. Each column is a justification for each series/franchise of Spider-Man films, based on a common term for each. I will concede years may be helpful, but still not the young actors. This table is meant to be just a quick overview highlighting the main actors to portray the characters. The young actor in the Webb series definitely isn't the main one, and while we note elsewhere in the article about Max Favreau being retroactively made Peter Parker in the MCU, he doesn't need to be noted in the table since Tom Holland is the main actor portraying him. And IP, discussions are formed from consensus, not the number of users who may or may not "vote" in your favor. Having Zucat do such adds no weight to the arguments you're presenting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Drafts for all series except MCU series
I feel like all series except the MCU series deserve drafts. If Venom's series, the Sony Marvel Universe, has a draft, then the series should have drafts. Click here for the Sam Raimi trilogy draft. Click here for the Marc Webb duology draft. Does anyone think that the article for the title of The Amazing Spider-Man series' article should be changed? 73.185.25.110 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do they "deserve" drafts? We don't create articles based on what other articles exist, but based on the notability criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Animated Spider-Man listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Animated Spider-Man. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Images of actors in corresponding sections
I made an edit for an image of Holland with a caption including commentary on his role. I haven't added the other actors like Maguire, Garfield, or even Nicholas Hammond because I wanted to ask if this is even necessary, what with the fair use image at the top of the article. Maybe should consider putting an image from wikimedia commons of Hammond in the 1977 film section? -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 01:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove Spider-Man (1978 film) from the table
I see no sense in the inclusion of Spider-Man (1978 film), which has no intersection with any other Spider-Man media, in the table. It's a rather far-removed one-off. BD2412 T 04:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection, I am doing this now. BD2412  T 17:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement regarding casting of Jamie Foxx in the Recurring Cast section
"In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Foxx portrays a different incarnation of the character than the one seen in the Webb films."

The *only* thing said thus far is that Electro 'would not be depicted as blue' for No Way Home. While it was a reasonable assumption at the time that Jamie Foxx was portraying a new iteration of Electro, with the confirmation of multiversal elements and Alfred Molina playing the version of Doctor Octopus as seen in Spider-Man 2, I feel this statement has lost its 'reasonable assumption' status. I'm not advocating changing it to indicate that he is, in fact, TASM2 Electro, because we still don't know that for sure. What I'm suggesting is that this statement be removed outright until the facts are established either way.

I would have gone ahead and done this myself, but I want to know if that's agreeable before doing so. giftheck (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

How do we reference multiple Spider-Men in the table?
If, as expected, Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield show up as versions of Spider-Man in the MCU, do we then include all of them in the row or MCU films as Spider-Man actors? BD2412 T 20:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Since nobody responded. I think it was figured it out actually. I assume that’s to your liking? Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems fine. BD2412  T 21:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Three Spider-Men
It would be better if we get one image of the three Spider-Men, since it’s now possible per fair use guidelines. Though I do understand the wait for when they release more official HD pictures. Jhenderson 7 7 7  21:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which section are you thinking of placing that hypothetical image? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Jhenderson is talking about the infobox image. —El Millo (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am referring to the lead image. The image that shows examples of Spider-Man actors. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be a bit awkward to incorporate animated Miles into the lead image though. - Richiekim (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, there were also multiple Spider-Men (and -Women) in Spider-Verse, so what if we had two images stacked, one with the three from No Way Home, and one with the half dozen from Spiderverse? BD2412  T 22:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn’t find animated Miles so lead worthy myself. Not as much as the live-action Peter Parker’s. This page still seems more Peter Parker centric. I am sure we can collage the two images together if need to though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be too much. We should stick to each series' protagonist. —El Millo (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Spider-Verse animated film series is so much trickier. For example Spider-Gwen plays a major role and there are plans for her to be the major protagonist with two other Spider-Women. Maybe we shouldn’t use the animated characters as a lead and put an relevant image of the section talking about it. Spider-Ham made a protagonist role in a short too. But I think that’s a bit minor myself. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Peter B. Parker" also plays a fairly major role in the film. I think a slightly more closely cropped version of this image would work. BD2412  T 22:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No arguments there regarding “Peter B. Parker”. I definitely feel there is a big three in the first Spider-Verse film. The other Spider-people were slightly important but no telling if they will stay recurring. Also that image is cool though I am in hopes we can have Spider-Man 2099 join the club since it looks he serves possibly a major role in sequel. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So right now we're thinking of including at least 6 Spider-People (Tom, Tobey, Andrew, Miles, Peter B. Parker, and Gwen)? That seems a little bit excessive to me, especially since three of them have only appeared in one film thus far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No I (or at least originally) am talking about one (or two) of the same images of them. I could care less about adding Spider-verse animated characters as a lead image personally. Right now there is four different images within four different films collaged together in this article. That's too excessive per fair use guidelines since the live-action characters already merged in one film together now. There is already a decent image going on with the three Spider-Man on top of Statue of Liberty in No Way Home for example.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  06:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Official images releases
The image I referred to is now officially released. Though some might have a preference with mask off images maybe? Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a mask-off image would be good if one of those comes out so you can clearly see which person is which. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Those don’t seem to be officially released yet. I can think of two scenes that maybe can work. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I also feel like once the film is available on home media, that will be a benefit because we can then pull screenshots if nothing official is released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, we have the meme photo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Or a screen shot could be taken from this promo video from around 0:23-0:25 seconds, them in the suits posing with masks off. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Licensing agreement with Marvel Studios"
I think this section should just be retitled "Marvel Cinematic Universe". Any thoughts? If there's no opposition I may change it myself later. 114.125.111.234 (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current title is accurate to what is happening between Sony and Marvel Studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "What is happening between Sony and Marvel Studios," which is bringing Spider-Man into the MCU. The note doesn't make sense to justify and "protect" that section title. Your explanation isn't either. 114.125.93.8 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As a header on a Spider-Man in film article, "Licensing agreement with Marvel Studios" is much more description, in addition to being correct, than just "Marvel Cinematic Universe". Having established in the vast majority of sections prior to it that Sony has the film rights to the character, just having "Marvel Cinematic Universe" as a header implies that universe is a creation from them, not what occurred that they licensed the character for use in film to Marvel Studios. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"TASM 4" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TASM 4 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Amazing 4" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Amazing 4 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Box office
When I click on worldwide to list the highest earners, high-low, it doesn't work for me. It works fine for North America and other territories. Does anyone know why, or can fix?Halbared (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It works fine for me, and I don't see any errors in the code. This may have been a minor glitch on your device or browser. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue seems to be with the headings as the table works properly in preview mode with them removed
 * Other territories doesn't work properly for me either, No Way Home and the 1977 Spider-Man are together but should be opposite
 * Not sure if there's a fix other than removing the headings Indagate (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had mistakenly thought Halbared meant they were not seeing the arrows to sort the columns, but now I see what you all mean. I have fixed the issue by forcing all of the headers to the top when being sorted. Thanks to Indagate for determining the cause of the problem. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it Indagate (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for resolving the issue, I had checked it myself against Batman/Superman lists but couldn't see how to resolve when I checked in preview mode, thanks.Halbared (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing Miles from main image
– the lede image is meant to encompass the main characters of their respective Spider-Man film series, which includes Miles, whom you removed. Per the explanation, Miles would be restored. Pinging as he seems to also oppose the removal of Miles. — SirDot (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to fight it, but disregarding Miles did seem incredibly suspect CreecregofLife (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @SirDot hello, since the old version of the article was too wide and made difficult to read the article and since the caption stated "actors" etc, and the animated poster isn't the actor (s. moore is), so I thought and still think the animated poster was superfluous. My suggestion is to add a photo of shameik moore under the three live action actors in order to keep the page more accessible and also make more sense from a dissertation point of view. I'm editing with the suggestion to show what I mean, feel free to revert if it looks odd. PersiaF |Talk|Contr| 00:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is the voice actor relegated to an unnecessary second row? CreecregofLife (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @CreecregofLife I see another user jumped in with a multiimage template, which I didn't know existed! I think that is the best solution, with shameik moore instead of a strange animation poster! PersiaF |Talk|Contr| 01:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, if you interpret it as actors. I was also thinking of using multiple image but I generally don't know how to properly use it. — SirDot (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Question, should we just put Jake Johnson and Chris Pine there instead as they play Peter Parker in ITSV (Into The Spider-Verse) instead? I feel like this section is focusing on the interpretations of PETER PARKER in film, not other characters. While Miles is undoubtedly the main character of ITSV, I feel like it would be better. Chickenmonger (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should shoot for the most recognizable faces. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that Moore is now the preview image of the article (via search), rather than the collage of Spider-Man actors. — SirDot (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sony-Marvel licensing details
Should there be a section detailing info about Sony's licensing of Spider-Man in film? Such as including information about how the company has to make a Spider-Man film every 5 years or they lose the rights, or how Peter has to be depicted in a certain way (such as not doing drugs)? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Gwen Stacy (Spider-Verse)
This article just popped up, and I was like, "What the ...?" This article 100% fails WP:NFILMCHAR, and Miles Morales doesn't even have an article yet! InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This can definitely be moved to the draftspace (even though there was the bare minimum of a draft page that existed before this one). There was a prior attempt to create a Miles article that I redirected due to NFILMCHAR and GNG, and this one is no exception to those, especially with the WP:RECENTISM focus on Across the Spider-Verse and the commentary on speculation which does not really support an article on this iteration of the character being more notable yet regardless. Pinging article creator Soulbust. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have sent it back to draftspace immediately if it hadn't been created a month ago. Too bad I didn't notice until now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I don't hate it. Outside of the WP:NFILMCHAR issue, it's a very thorough and well-sourced article. It could slide by on the depth of analysis in the sources, since coverage of gender/trans representation issues is entirely focused on this character. BD2412  T 16:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Miles not having an article is relevant when assessing if Gwen is able to clear WP:GNG or WP:NFILMCHAR. I think the sourcing present does meet the extensive coverage and commentary. There is a lot obviously there already for the coverage (though I do still want to add what Spider-Verse composer Daniel Pemberton did with developing the musical themes for her character). I think what probably makes or breaks stand-alone status for fictional character articles, for most people, is the commentary or coverage of the character out-of-universe. And I would say there's just a lot of stuff there in the 'Critical and audience reception' section that supports the point that there is indeed substantial commentary on this character. As BD2412 noted, the coverage of Gwen's gender representation, as well as the trans allegory interpretation, are centered totally around Gwen.
 * The previous attempt at creating an article for Miles resulted in the redirect back on May 26. But after that, on June 19, I added reference ideas for Miles on the corresponding Draft talk page. I only think one of them overlaps with the references already present in the attempt that ended up being redirected. Considering the 15 references on the current draft, the 33 on the redirected version, and the 14 I added through the Refideas template, I think Miles would be able to have his own article stand-alone just fine. And once I get a little bit of free-time later this week to do actual substantial edits, I'll look into expanding the draft for Miles. Soulbust (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well. Now I've come across another unnecessary article created by Soulbust, Music of Spider-Verse. I'm strongly considering taking that article to AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This does seem somewhat redundant to having Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) article, and anything in this article not found in those could be merged out to them (primarily to the first one, as it sets the tone for the series). BD2412  T 16:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support merging that article into the individual soundtrack articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Music of Spider-Verse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wattsverse" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wattsverse&redirect=no Wattsverse] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Watts-Verse" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts-Verse&redirect=no Watts-Verse] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)