Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've just seen Homecoming again, with closed captions: Teacher Mr. Harrington, played by Martin Starr, calls the Zendaya character "Michelle" at about the 59:10 mark, in an outdoor scene at the Washington Monument (which doesn't appear in the closed captioning for some reason, but it clearly audible in dialog), and again at about 01:56:31, as the Academic Decathlon team sits around a desk with the trophy (and this time it is in closed caption). Finally, she is listed as "Michelle" in the end credits. At no point whatsoever does the movie itself call her "Jones". If the movie does not, then we cannot.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I found an article from Variety that calls Zendaya's character Michelle Jones. Is it good enough and can we use it? Here it is El Millo (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Name confirmed as Michelle Jones in official novelisation https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49 Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There names confirmed as Michelle Jones Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A

primary source can't be used as a secondary source for another primary source. DonQuixote (talk

) 18:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look it’s the official novelisation of the movie it’s not a random report it’s literalky a fully published book which actually has interview details with each of the main cast and was created as like a pre movie guide Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Interviews, which are valid secondary sources, can be used to describe a primary source. Primary sources can never be used as secondary sources for other primary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously I find a reliable source and it’s still not good enough, look her name is confirmed as Jones and Fiege said her initials were MJ meaning her last name starts with J. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article is on the movie, not the official cannon, or the published book. The best you can get is a note, stating none of the films state her surname, but there's this official book which does. I am not too enthusiastic about even this, but that is the only realistic option that atleast has a chance. IMHO, you are obsessing too much over this MJ stuff. So many sentences wasted over a minor word! DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A primary source is not a reliable source insofar as secondary sources are concerned. In encyclopaedias, a primary source can only be used to describe itself. DonQuixote (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look Fiege said “Michelle, who we know there's an "M" in Michelle and an "M" in Mary. [laughs] So we're so clever and we thought, "Wouldn't it be neat if her initials were MJ?" Case closed her surname starts with a J officially from the man himself Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Initials = An abbreviation of a person's name, constructed by taking the initial letters of first, last, and sometimes middle name(s). Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And that's all you can cite that source for--that her initials are MJ. You can't cite it for anything else because that'll be academically dishonest. DonQuixote (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2017/07/10/spider-man-homecoming-producers-on-the-reveal-of-that-characters-nickname Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

G Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://variety.com/2017/film/news/spider-man-homecoming-box-office-opening-thursday-1202489202/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

First one doesn't mention Jones. Second one is a box office report. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The context of any source matters. Assigning a surname to a character from a film when the film itself doesn't say so in the content/credits borders on WP:SYNTH. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Since nobody can make up their mind we'll just go with MJ since that's what fiege officially called her Hhggtg3279 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What is she listed as in the film's credits? What the credits list her as is what she should be listed as here. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: But is it like that in other MCU articles? Do the credits in Endgame say «Harold "Happy" Hogan» or do they just say «Happy Hogan»? Same with «Virginia "Pepper" Potts». I don't know how strict that rule is. If we have a reliable source for her full name, shouldn't we use it? El Millo (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anymore people are just doing their own stuff I don't think there's any set rules how the cast list is supposed to be Hhggtg3279 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines: "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." per

consensus has been reached. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 06:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Jones isn't used to refer to the character anywhere in the films, so I doubt the name is common. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Shhhhhhh Hhggtg3279 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we all stop squabbling like school kids enough sources have confirmed her last name as Jones done argueing. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but right now, you are the only one insisting on including Jones. DeluxeVegan (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Actual credits are authoritative as to what the credited characters' names are. Other sources used only when credits are unclear which is not the case here as the credits and the movie itself never mention "Jones". Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The credits don't give her full name, we have a reliable source that does, and it helps explain her nickname which otherwise would be unclear. No reason to limit this just to the credits when giving the full name is obviously useful for the readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The events of New York battle in Avengers took place in 2012 and the movie (Spider-Man Homecoming) says that the events of Spider-Man Homecoming took place after 8 years of the battle of New York. Does that mean the events of Spider-Man Homecoming took place in 2020?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulkit Chopra (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

As detailed in the article, the "8 years" was a mistake. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The film takes place 4 years and 4 months after the battle of New York.

talk

) 15:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Just like most Marvel movie articles, this entry is very dense and includes way too many unnecessary details for a Wikipedia article. It is a wall of text and is virtually unapproachable for someone who is looking to learn casually about the movie. The whole model for writing Wikipedia entries for Marvel movies should be reconsidered, and this article specifically should be trimmed by about 60 percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaperWario (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s so odd how such minor characters like Glover and Daly get their own bullets while Harrier and Batalon don’t. After Holland and Keaton, Liz and Ned are arguably the most important characters, even more prominent than MJ. I don’t understand this. I get it on the info box because all movie info boxes on Wikipedia list the actors according to the poster typically, but all cast lists for movies I’ve seen on Wikipedia usually lists the cast either in order of importance or in order of the cast credits. Harrier and Batalon come before Tomei, Daly, and Downey Jr. in the credits. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's being currently discussed in the thread immediately above this one. El Millo (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does Daly's super-brief cameo get a bullet point while Batalon and Harrier are confined to the following, somewhat-TLDR paragraph? Heck, it seems like most of the actors who play characters prominent enough in the actual film for us to name them in the plot summary don't actually get bullet points. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s based on the billing block as seen here. It’s not perfect but it’s the most neutral approach we have. If you have another suggestion that’s not based on personal POV on who we feel is more prominent, then it would be worth a listen.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe give bullet points to every actor who plays a character important enough to name in the plot summary? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. And the order?—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Order of appearance works. Or alphabetical by surname. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we could just get consensus for one or two exceptions. That is, respect the billing block except for that one brief cameo and two major roles. Batalon and Harrier can just be added as the last bullet point, with an invisible comment to clarify. There's no need to change the whole system. El Millo (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't support basing it on the plot summary when that is completely up to the way editors have written it and could change at any time. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, what would your solution be? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a solution is required, but if there is clear consensus that a specific change needs to be made from the billing order then I think that would make sense to implement. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, do you understand that the optics of giving a bullet point to an old white woman who has a minuscule cameo, while major supporting actors of colour are relegated to a messy paragraph at the bottom, are problematic?

Anyway, in the last two years the changes to the plot summary have been pretty minor, with the only significant change from this point of view being that Gwyneth Paltrow's character is now mentioned, but I wouldn't be opposed to reverting that change since it resolves a plotline introduced in a separate film which has nothing to do with this film's plot and is not apparently mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we submit this to vote? El Millo (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's reached that stage yet; per

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, if one editor presents a reason why a change should be made and two, three or even four editors oppose without providing a policy-based reason, that one editor's proposal should normally pass by default, and I'm still waiting for a policy-based reason my proposal doesn't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 01:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't outright oppose it, at least I don't. I'm just saying that there's no need to change the system by which we show or order them, we just can add those two and remove that other one if we reach consensus, which, by reading this discussion, I'd say it's been reached, or it's very close to at least. The policy offers these "rules of thumb" to choose: "billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources". Now, those wouldn't take us where we want to go specifically in this article, so we should just make an exception: we use billing, but we change it a bit based on consensus. El Millo (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'd be amenable to that we just can add those two and remove that other one if we reach consensus solution, but as for finding cast lists in reliable sources, this one is probably even better: the optics of prioritizing Daly over Batalon and Harrier were what got to me (at the time of the film's release, Daly was probably better-known among film-goers than Batalon and Harrier, but that's almost certainly not the case anymore -- and unlike, say, Paltrow, Daly's presence on the poster would not have been a spoiler), but honestly Glover's cameo is almost as small as Daly's (I'd also have to watch the film again to confirm whether Zendaya has more lines than Favreau, but that's a really minor point). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands lists Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Donald Glover, Tyne Daly, Marisa Tomei, and Robert Downey Jr. The proposed new listing is Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jacob Batalon, Laura Harrier, Zendaya, Marisa Tomei, Robert Downey Jr. @Adamstom.97: @TriiipleThreat: opinions? El Millo (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this had to become a racism issue. I support sticking to the standard billing, but if people feel strongly about not including Daly in the main list due to her only being in the movie for like two minutes then I think that would make sense. I am against completely changing the cast listing or randomly inserting other actors into the middle of the billing. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are not sure why this had to become a racism issue then you do not understand the problem. Prioritizing minor cameos (black or white) over major supporting actors who happen to be people of colour looks very bad, regardless of the motive. This (combined with the fact that Glover's cameo isn't quite so minor) is why I am more in favour of removing Daly than removing Glover. I am not saying that there was racist malice on the part of whoever decided Batalon and Harrier wouldn't get their names on the poster: I think it is quite likely that it is only because those two young actors were relatively unknown prior to this film's release, when Daly was already established. However, since 2017 Batalon has appeared in two Avengers films, including the highest-grossing film of all time, while Harrier had a major role in one of the rare films that both won an Oscar and had widespread audience appeal, and arguably the commercial success of this film alone made both Harrier and Batalon more recognizable than Daly -- this means that essentially the poster-billing is

out of date. I am against completely changing the cast listing or randomly inserting other actors into the middle of the billing. "billing"? It's a cast list in a Wikipedia article, and is sourced to a well-regarded newspaper. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 03:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to start fighting. @Adamstom.97: are you against or in favor of adding Batalon and Harrier at the end of the bulleted cast list, like it's already been done in Thor for a while? If against, why? El Millo (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A related situation. I realized Tadanobu Asano, Josh Dallas, and Jaimie Alexander are not credited in the poster for Thor, but they still get a bullet point in the section. They are listed after Anthony Hopkins (last billing in the poster). YgorD3 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That approach would work here, plus the removal of Daly. El Millo (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If any change from the poster billing should be made, we should not arbitrarily move 2 people (Batalon and Harrier) up as has been suggested, nor remove people who are billed despite the roles being minuscule and the billing most likely because of contractual things. Because then what about adding Paltrow or Revilori? I believe the solution to this to remain as neutral as we can is we should use the on-end credits billing order. This should solve the issue presented by Hijiri88. You can find the order here (Link removed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)) starting at 1:24 until 2:00. The resulting order would then be: Holland, Keaton, Favreau, Paltrow, Zendaya, Glover, Batalon, Harrier, Revolori, Woodbine, Daly, Tomei, Downey Jr. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:ELNEVER, please refrain from linking to probably-bootleg YouTube uploads of portions of copyright films anywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages, even if the portion is relatively small and is being linked to for demonstrated purposes. It seems extremely unlikely that the YouTube account "Potito Roberto Vinyl Sound" had permission from the copyright holders to use any of that footage. I would rather not explain this in any more detail, so if you have any questions Drmies has, in my experience, generally been happy to deal with issues like this in the past. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 15:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out about Thor, I would also suggest its end credits be used for order. Thor's would just then bring up Gregg to a bullet, and adjust the order of those already there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with use of the end credits. Its neutral and solves the problem with Batalon and Harrier.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a decent compromise to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 and Facu-el Millo: does this work for both of you? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It's good enough. El Millo (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That list (Holland, Keaton, Favreau, Paltrow, Zendaya, Glover, Batalon, Harrier, Revolori, Woodbine, Daly, Tomei, Downey Jr.) seems reasonable, if somewhat long. I would still prefer to use a reliable secondary source and would appreciate a reason given for not doing so, mind you. To the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested that we arbitrarily move 2 people (Batalon and Harrier) up (that seems to be a strawman argument meant, I can only guess, to make a reliance on advertising materials and other primary sources seem more reasonable) and The Telegraph is not a biased or dubious source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

On-screen credits take priority over posters or secondary sources because they're not subject to promotional bias in posters or cast kept secret to avoid spoilers. Although I completely agree that crediting a minor-role white actor over minorities who played bigger roles is unfair... we still need to follow the movie credits. We can't change the credits to fix a diversity issue. Our job is just to report what is, not what should be. Otherwise, we open a can of worms where there's no proper guideline for cast listing. Editors would keep fighting about who deserves a higher credit... and it will be nothing but chaos. — Starforce¹³ 14:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

On-screen credits take priority over posters or secondary sources because they're not subject to promotional bias in posters or cast kept secret to avoid spoilers. I agree completely that the on-screen credits take priority over posters for those reasons (and I think if we are going to include cameos, Paltrow makes a lot more sense). I don't see how secondary sources written after the film's broad release, based on an objective analysis of what's actually in the film, can be taken as inferior to on-screen credits, though. The Telegraph article is a better representation of the cast in terms of screen-time, lines, and prominence in the story than either of the primary sources presented, and I think that while editors can argue over which actors they like and think should be present more prominently, these are pretty objective measures that no one is likely to disagree with in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: In the Telegraph article, are you talking about the cast listing right at the top of it in bold? If so, while the Telegraph is a reputable source for sure, what's their reasoning in selecting those actors? And then on our end, why are we choosing and looking to that source only, when many other reputable sources have cast lists in their reviews to give an overview of actors? The NY Times, is different from THR, is different from Variety is different from your Telegraph source. So if we don't want to use the poster billing block order, then the next best neutral order should be that in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

what's their reasoning in selecting those actors? I would assume something approximating the reasoning I gave in the comment immediately above yours? Anyway ... we could list everyone who is common to all of those sources? The NYT article is apparently behind a paywall (or I have to give it my personal information -- doesn't really matter, since this discussion isn't worth either), but the other two sources you linked both list Harrier and Batalon, presumably also for the same reasoning I indicated above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but again, we shouldn't be compositing a list from a handful of third party sources, when we can stick to the list the film gives us to remain the most neutral in the matter. Because no matter how you view it, do it the way you've suggested is still based on an opinion of us as editors. So we could come to a consensus, but then another editor could come around and say, "no, it should be this order". That's why we try whenever possible to avoid list orders compiled by editor opinion (or by proxy third party sources), especially since an order given by the film (the end credits) can satisfy the initial desire you had of moving Harrier and Batalon into the list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@

I'm not advocating that we "compile our own list by picking bits from different sources": I'm advocating that we pick one of the reliable secondary sources and stick to it. You are, of course, wrong to assert that a formatting decision like this can constitute OR (of either the SYNTH or conventional variety), but that would be beside the point anyway: I suggested it only as a possible compromise that would be preferable to implying the film has a main cast of 13 members. It's for the same reason here that we bullet

Zoe Saldana, Tom Holland - who weren't in the billing block. No idea what the relevance of this is. That film's billing block was clearly compiled with "don't list the ones who died" as the prime directive, but it isn't "problematic" like here. I would, however, strongly advocate for that article's cast section to be overhauled based on reliable secondary sources as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 05:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

But once again, hypothetically, if you pick The Telegraph source, I pick THR and some one else picks The New York Times as the one to use, we are all "right" in our choices. As I tried to get across in a comment earlier, what makes The Telegraph's listing better than THR's? And again, how are each of these publications coming to these lists? If you want the list to change here, the most neutral alternative is still the main on end credits of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Which, again, is why we can use our

ignore if it creates more problems, or more serious problems, than it solves) as billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, but I'm not seeing where MOS explicitly states that this is used for determining which cast members get their own special paragraphs and which get lumped in at the bottom of the list. It seems to be describing cases like BlacKkKlansman#Cast

(probably how the vast majority of our film articles are written, making them the rule and this exception) where the entire section consists of a series of bullet points with little or no prose.

Anyway, are you actually saying that you would prefer THR to The Telegraph or are you just presenting a hypothetical? If the latter, can you present a specific case where such a problem occurred in the history of this article or another like it? If the former, do you have a specific reason?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think he's just asking why should we favor one source's listing over the other, and saying that this possible problem would be solved by just using the main on end credits in the film itself. Are you against using the credits or do you just prefer the cast list The Telegraph made? El Millo (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the more I think about it the more I am against having one list of bullet-pointed paragraphs followed by a separate group of 2-3 paragraphs, and having what information is included in which be determined not by the volume of information to be written on each character but on some arbitrary criterion like being listed on the poster or in the film's end credits.

How about each cast member about whom we have at least one or two full sentences of text (not including "X played Y.") is given their own bullet point? At present, this would give bullet points to Batalon and Revolori, but not Harrier (which may actually be a result of no effort being made to write more on Harrier because of her not having a bullet point, making this a vicious circle) and take Daly off.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You still are presenting the exact problem we are trying to avoid: editors cobbling together some form of a list based on parameters X, Y, and Z. That's not neutral despite how you are trying to present it as being so. That list can change if new material comes out down the road, forcing, or another editor takes issue with the parameters you've selected to make such list. There is no changing the list order on the billing block, nor the main end credits. They are there for all to see and confirm order. And yes, some actors have more material associated with them resulting in larger paragraphs, while some have none. But we should be sticking to an order given to us by the studio so we don't do what we are doing now: arguing on the parameters to order such list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo was correct in understanding my point in my response about choosing a third party source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Not neutral"? Do you understand that editors can use their editorial discretion to resolve blatant and highly problematic neutrality issues like the one that currently plagues this article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

By "blatant and highly problematic neutrality issues" are you referring to not including Batalon and Harrier in the bulleted list or to something else? El Millo (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s so odd how such minor characters like Glover and Daly get their own bullets while Harrier and Batalon don’t. After Holland and Keaton, Liz and Ned are arguably the most important characters, even more prominent than MJ. I don’t understand this. I get it on the info box because all movie info boxes on Wikipedia list the actors according to the poster typically, but all cast lists for movies I’ve seen on Wikipedia usually lists the cast either in order of importance or in order of the cast credits. Harrier and Batalon come before Tomei, Daly, and Downey Jr. in the credits. When can me change the cast list and add Harrier and Batalon? Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be too much of a mess if we started listing them by order of importance because everyone has a different opinion on who's more important, so we're trying to define which cast list provided by reliable sources we choose. Thus far, we're between the film's main on end credits and many listings by secondary sources. El Millo (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue or a discussion why not just go according to the movie's end credits and the movie's IMDb credits, which have the same cast listing besides Daly, Downey Jr., and Tomei being switched around? I don't understand what the issue of adding Batalon and Harrier is. They're objectively major characters, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.Factfanatic1 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We are close to using the end credits as the new listing I believe, but Hijiri88 who as of yet does not seem to support such a method, has yet to respond since their last comment on March 31. Should this discussion go on longer without them adding new responses, I believe we can make this change (but with the full main on end credit order, not picking and choosing as you have done). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not picking and choosing. I agree with the end credits order.Factfanatic1 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You were, when you picked changed Harrier, Batalon, and Revolori with these edits, and only Batalon and Harrier with this edit, when it has been noted here (or just by the film itself) that the end credits list is: Holland, Keaton, Favreau, Paltrow, Zendaya, Glover, Batalon, Harrier, Revolori, Woodbine, Daly, Tomei, Downey Jr. Paltrow, Batalon, Harrier, Revolori, and Woodbine all would move to the bulleted list if this is ultimately implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize. I agree with doing the main end credits though.Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well it appears Hijiri88 is indefinitely blocked. @TriiipleThreat, Facu-el Millo, Adamstom.97, YgorD3, Starforce13, and Factfanatic1: do any of you have any final thoughts on the matter, or are you okay with implementing the order from the main-on-end credits? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing else from me. Let's follow the main-on-end credits. — Starforce¹³ 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. (P.S. here's a press kit document from Sony with the official final credits [1] like seen at the end of the film) - Brojam (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that find Brojam! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, final credits works as a compromise for me. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Final credits works for me as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. YgorD3 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's do it. El Millo (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Let’s follow the credits. Maybe we can also add the additional actors not only in the cast list but also in the beginning of the article at the top of the page and in the info box too. Factfanatic1 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand I’m coming in after the fact but I’m not so sure about this. Something of this nature I feel would need to be addressed on a bigger platform in regards to film articles as a whole because across the board the infobox billing method has been per poster billing block. Perhaps this should be brought forth to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film before implementing this. Rusted AutoParts 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:FILMCAST does not explicitly mention a list needing to be by this method. Only Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. and it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. Poster billing is the usual method, but we have gone with the end credit billing, which all who participated felt satisfied what is mentioned at FILMCAST, and addressed an issue that was brought up, that some actors probably should be listed in the bullets. I don't think this is something to bring to the wider project, because I feel most will say that the editors who gained a consensus here was the right approach. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a newer editor looking to create a Wikipedia page for a film and I was wondering where you found the poster and how it was uploaded without copyright issues. Please explain. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You can really find it pretty much anywhere but look for a good quality version. as to the copyright issues, you'll need to include the proper fair use tags.. so look at one of the existing movie posters on the site and copy the info on those pages. Spanneraol (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@

the upload wizard to add it to Wikipedia. And as Spanneraol said, you need to include proper fair use tags, so if the wizard is too confusing, after it is upload, just copy/paste the info from an existing file and adjust the info accordingly. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 00:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ned in the cast list for

Well, if it's linked there then it's okay to link it here. El Millo (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It should honestly be linked in both places to

Ned Leeds (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (with this instance piped to simply "Ned"). - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 20:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done El Millo (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

None of these castings are confirmed except for Benedict Cumberbatch/Doctor Strange as he was seen on the set of the third Spider-Man film for the MCU. I don't believe that you should be spreading lies through the Wikipedia page, until there is confirmation from Marvel/Sony and/or hard evidence of them on set. Even Jamie Foxx's statement can't be taken into account yet, until he is confirmed. Alfred Molina coming back as Doctor Octopus is also likely, but still not truly confirmed. Nothing else is likely to happen as they are only rumors and you should be more suspicious and hesitant of these sources and news articles. What I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions and give people false hope. The changes I made were for the greater good of the people that want to know the truth. I have screenshots of everything you have done, so I have credibility. I will ask you to please make proper edits and changes considering these rumors, if you have to make me repeat it, I will take action. Burnedmyhandwithtoast (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources mentioned those so it cannot be a rumor

WP:VNT. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 16:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have screenshots of everything you have done, so I have credibility. I will ask you to please make proper edits and changes considering these rumors, if you have to make me repeat it, I will take action? This sounds a bit like a threat of legal action. El Millo (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur, editor given a notice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@

Russo's comments are noteworthy in the context of how the Avengers films handled this situation since he co-directed that film, but as far as stating that this film in-and-of-itself is incorrect we should go with the official studio comments and not the opinion of a director who was not involved in this film. If Watts had made this comment then that would be a different story since he actually directed this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to add, if any changes or additions were to be made, we could include this Polygon source that we have in the MCU timeline section to support the mistake was ignored in Infinity War which specified that its events were taking place only six years after The Avengers. so saying that Infinity War changed the mistake, but I still agree we shouldn't be including the Russos for Adam's reasonings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Why we can't edit the post credits scene. People need to know that there is a post credits scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuval4436 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 October, 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FILMPLOT explicitly states that unhelpful/joke etc. scenes should not be included. In the instance of the post-credits scene, it does not add anything to this film, nor the MCU at large so should be excluded. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 18:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spider-Man 6 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I was thinking that the future section still needs a bit of clean-up for all the subheadings that are in there, especially now that it is just about films, but I wasn't sure if we wanted to treat the additional trilogy as direct sequels or not. We should also probably be consisted with the recent changes to The Avengers (2012 film). As for Freshman Year, I think the see also note you made may be more appropriate at the Civil War article as Winderbaum said the "what if" scenario is based on Norman being in the Parkers' apartment like Tony was in Civil War. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about changing up the Future section and reducing headings. I was unsure about where the note for Freshman Year would be appropriate. It might be best on both articles, because yes, the inciting divergence is what's seen in Civil War, but those events dovetail into this film and I think it would still be helpful for readers to have the link here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If the show ends up having scenes that twist the events of this film then we should definitely have a note here. If not then I am less sure, but am not totally against it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My thinking for here at least was because some of the Civil War material obviously intersects with the beginning of this film, as well as Stark being Peter's mentor. But also given this is the first "franchise" film for Spider-Man in the MCU, it feels a bit odd not to note a spin-off animated series for that franchise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

During the closing title cards, the main actors per billing block are listed. However, right afterwards are these actors:

• card with six people: Abraham Attah, Hannibal Buress, Kenneth Choi, Selenis Leyva, Angourie Rice, Martin Starr
• card with four people: Garcelle Beauvais, Michael Chernus, Michael Mando, Logan Marshall-Green

Then comes Casting by Sarah Halley Finn title card.

They don't need to be listed in the billing block / infobox since it's not billing block, but shouldn't they be listed in the cast bullet listing? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Here they are as listed in the closing credits section later:

• Abraham Attah as Abe
• Hannibal Buress as Coach Wilson
• Kenneth Choi as Principal Morita
• Selenis Leyva as Ms. Warren
• Angourie Rice as Betty
• Martin Starr as Mr. Harrington
• Garcelle Beauvais as Doris Toomes
• Michael Chernus as Phineas Mason / The Tinkerer
• Michael Mando as Mac Gorgon
• Logan Marshall-Green as Jackson Brice / Shocker #1

No they shouldn't. Downey is the final actor of the billing. These actors you've listed are grouped together (to say they are not appearing individually) as the actual billing actors are. I don't know what the proper term for them may be, but I'd consider them "featured" actors. Many films, including other MCU ones, do this as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, they're still listed in the closing title cards though. In other films, they have a number of these after the single-billed title cards, 2-3 at a time or so, so it's not universally applied like that. But if this is to be the standard for MCU live-action films, or perhaps for space reasons, then please indicate that somewhere. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

For space reasons and relevance reasons. Those listed first and individually are clearly being given more importance when it comes to the credits than those listed after and in groups. —El Millo (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:MCUFILMCAST which further highlights this for the MCU taskforce. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 19:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, billing block is mainly for the {{infobox film}}, the WP:FILMCAST itself does not say use the block, but just billing in general. But yeah thanks for pointing out WP:MCUFILMCAST, exactly what I was looking for. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

True, but then that is how you can translate an order to the lead and to the cast list, which is noted in FILMCAST with the first point: ... it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing.... That's what's been done here as expanded upon at MCUFILMCAST, with the few exceptions to that such as this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST, we follow the billing block given on a film's theatrical release poster for order.Branjsmith94 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's just one method which can be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Spiderman 6 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8 § Spiderman 6 until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)