Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Variety

[A recent article on Variety] all but confirmed Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield returning for the film, among some other badly-kept secrets. This page itself cites sources lower on the reliability and verifiability scale than Variety, so it's high time they be added in to the cast list. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:AD5A:DF27:BCF4:3777 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

See previous discussions above. The only reason we have hidden this as opposed to including them is that we have conflicting info of Andrew Garfield's denial. IronManCap (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak argument seeing as you had conflicting info on both Oscar Isaac and Tatiana Maslany, but you still kept it in. You kept it on citing sources several leagues weaker than Variety, fyi. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:AD5A:DF27:BCF4:3777 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not true, those actors were also removed until they were re-confirmed later. This Variety article is not re-confirming anything, it is commenting on the existing rumours. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This article has been used already, but for No Way Home to imply a connection to the Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters. And, Tobey Maguire currently isn't confirmed to reprise his role as his respective Peter Parker / Spider-Man. Currently, Garfield has conflicting info on his Collider source and his "Denial" sources so we can't unhide him. – ChannelSpider (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If the primary source denies something about themselves, it has more weight over rumors from semi-reliable sites like Collider that don't even provide the source of their information. All but confirmed is not a confirmation- it's WP:SYNTHESIS. Until we have a reliable source, the actor or the studios confirming it, it's nothing but rumors. — Starforce¹³ 21:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you guys might say that. Even if the official trailer came out today with them front and center, you guys would figure out a way to somehow deny it. Also, Variety doesn't report on rumors. AND, this confirmation came from a Sony exec, not them, so....there's that. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:AD5A:DF27:BCF4:3777 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it seems blatantly obvious to you or us that they will be in the film. We simply have to act in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:RSCONTEXT. Although Variety is a reliable source, we have to use it in accordance with other information. We cannot provide WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to the claim that he will be in the film without mention of Garfield's denial. Like Starforce said, "all but confirmed" means you are interpreting from the source, rather than literally stating what is there, which is not allowed per WP:SYNTHESIS. IronManCap (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. The best time to write about a film for a tertiary source is after it's been released. DonQuixote (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I really love how you guys now accept Illuminerdi as a source. Except for this, lmao. Congratulations, the MCU Wikipedia brigade continues to be the bad punchline-built-in-joke around the many communities surrounding the series. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:5409:4C7D:CC5E:25BB (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No one is accepting that site as a source. If what I believe you are referring to is info at She-Hulk, that casting has since been independently confirmed by the trades, unlike this info which never was. Hence the caution since the info will come in due time if its true. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

Just a minor edit to the poster and other stuff. James Cameron, Official Sony Pictures Employee StarPlayer7 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. IronManCap (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we address the Spider-Man: No Way Home leaks?

It seems apparent that many users are adding info regarding the recent leak of the Spider-Man: No Way Home trailer seen here. This is gaining traction especially from Sony who's taking down any mentions of the leaked content.

Should we cite the events of this leak in the article? I think it would be noteworthy to know of its own. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 05:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if its that important, the real trailer will come out soon anyway, no need to rush Sleptlapps (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The leak should definitely be mentioned. It's been widely covered in RSs and the magnitude of the leak is pretty unprecedented. JOEBRO64 13:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

the magnitude of the leak is pretty unprecedented Hardly. It leaked, but it's very likely releasing officially today or tomorrow with the CinemaCon panel, so there isn't really a need to mention this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It definitely is a real trailer leak considering Sony themselves removed it as swiftly as they did. Many other media outlets are picking up on this too, so this would fall under notable commentary. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

When the Suicide Squad trailer leaked, it caused such an uproar and that was worth mentioning in the article. Why not this? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I say we wait until it officially releases in either a few hours or at CinemaCon. Not sure unofficial leaks count as marketing. – ChannelSpider (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and sourcing. Wassila/Superhero Theorist/Edward Rose (names seen in the leak) are not official sources. – ChannelSpider (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The leaks themselves can be covered, the content of the trailer should not. Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree Gonnym. – ChannelSpider (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just an FYI that some set pictures have leaked and while RSs haven't covered them just yet, they confirm... some pretty big things, to put it mildly. JOEBRO64 17:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Official website

FYI, Sony Pictures' official website for the film is live and can be found here. Just something to change once protection is lifted from this page. - Richiekim (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll make sure to add that in by Friday. – ChannelSpider (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Decreasing the Page Protection

I am starting a discussion on potentially decreasing the page protection for No Way Home, as suggested by User:El C. @InfiniteNexus, Favre1fan93, and Facu-el Millo what are your opinions on this situation and how we can resolve it? Cardei012597 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that this is a continuation of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I woke up, watched the trailer, checked the page and I can't even edit it. "Extended confirmed users" settings atleast? – ChannelSpider (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree, but even if we can't alter the protection tag, it will expire on August 27. So, its not the worst thing in the world if nothing gets accomplished by this discussion. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, shucks. – ChannelSpider (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well the people edit warring were extended confirmed, so wouldn't fix anything. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

True true. Guess its a waiting game now. – ChannelSpider (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think to further add in page protection would be to reach out to edit warring members and try to resolve it peacefully there until a consensus is reached. It can also be noted in general that major changes in casting are not to be made unless fully sourced and confirmed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Typo in the premise section

So, I noticed that in the premise section that is says “ things soon become much more dangerous and Parker must find what it really means to be Spider-Man.” I feel like the “and” should be replaced with an “as”. Anybody else with me on this? FilmLover72 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording of the premise can be improved. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Its not a typo, but I think the Premise is an extract from the official synopsis, so it wouldn't really be worth altering it. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2021

Want to add a casting that was shown in the trailer. KingArti (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Which casting? You would also need to provide a reliable source. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (as to the immediate edit request) - not enough information to evaluate and proceed. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 25, 2021

According to Deadline, the official teaser trailer received about 355.5 online views 24 hours after its premiere. This needs to be mentioned in the article since it beat Endgame's record by over 60 million views, seen in the trailers section of the list of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That's actually notable, and Deadline is a high caliber of reliability. Will be  Done. – ChannelSpider (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Endgame mentioned its previous record in its Marketing section. ChannelSpider (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that is notable and should be added once the protection expires. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Two new castings shown in the trailer

I noticed Arian Moayed as one of the interrogators talking to Peter, and Paula Newsome was in a car next to Tom Holland. Should we add those in the page ? KingArti (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

With a secondary reliable source attached, yes. —El Millo (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is a source for Newsome: https://screenrant.com/spiderman-no-way-home-miles-morales-mother-theory/ AxGRvS (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This GamesRadar article details J. K. Simmons' return and verifies Paula Newsome is in the film, which would be more suitable than an article discussing a theory. This article from Celeb Reelz (which I'm not sure is that reliable) verifies Arian Moayed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 26, 2021

An online written interview with one of the film's gaffers, Joshua Davis, revealed that cinematographer Mauro Fiore replaced Seamus McGarvey after his withdrawal due to contracting COVID. Should this change wait until a more official source (Sony website, poster billing block) reflects it? Snowshredder140 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source is good enough. This can be updated once protection expires in a few hours. IronManCap (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

These two sources should suffice for inclusion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Green Goblin

The trailer strongly suggests (to comic book fans) that Green Goblin will appear in the movie, but it doesn't confirm that Willem Dafoe will be playing the character. The sources that say it does seem to be assuming this based on the short tease in the trailer or knowledge of the prior rumours. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Many of those reports are based on the fact that you hear his voice/laugh in the trailer. I agree the news reports are not directly saying Dafoe will be the Goblin, but it is basically implied that he will be. Besides, even if we decide to remove him, we would need an administrator to join this discussion, due to a recent page protection tag. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Variety is reporting it as true, and that should be enough for us. We should trust that they are reporting it on more information than just the trailer alone, being a source of as high a caliber as Variety is. The laugh is pretty clearly Dafoe's, and the design of the pumpkin bombs is the same as in Raimi's films. There have been no reports denying Dafoe's appearance either, and one interview with him where he avoided the question rather than answering no. All I mean by mentioning all these things is that there are no other reports or information conflicting with what Variety stated, and all available info at least points in the same direction. So with all that, we can safely include it in the article. —El Millo (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Variety isn't reporting that his casting is confirmed by their sources, they are reporting that the trailer confirms his casting, which it does not. Even reliable sources can make mistakes, or unintentionally present information in a way to suggest something else. I'm not against saying that people are interpreting the trailer to imply that he is cast, but we do not add incorrect information just because it comes from a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I do highly suggest that we table this discussion until we solve the issue of decreasing the page protection (the discussion section just above). Even if we decide on removing Dafoe, it would be a rather fruitless concensus until we can actually make such a change on the page. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to delay the discussion. Whatever consensus is formed will be applied to the article when we can. At the protection decrease we'll have to wait for El_C's (or other admin's) response to see if the latest comments convinced them, if further arguments have to be presented, or if we'll just have to wait until it is automatically lifted on August 27. —El Millo (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sure the protection will be downgraded once you find consensus. If that happens before August 27, so much the better...if not, it will lift automagically. The protection of the article should not prevent fruitful discussion to go forward. I am declining the request for downgrading protection over at requests for protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This may be major WP:OR on my part, but I was interpreting the Variety article wording as confirmation that came not only from the trailer, but the presentation of the trailer at CinemaCon. Their wording implied that Molina, Dafoe, and Foxx were all confirmed, while Maguire and Garfield were still rumored. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing I do think for sure, is J.K. Simmons isn't really confirmed by the trailer. I was going to comment him back out last night when the protection was added to the page. For all we know, that's recycled footage/lines from Far From Home and the trailer doesn't seem to indicate a new appearance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

For non-controversial changes (such as hiding J.K. Simmons), we can always just submit an edit request. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not an urgent error that can't wait until the protection lifts. Regardless, what is the thought then regarding Dafoe? I feel we should include him saying he is in the film without any thought of it be "supposed" or "suspected". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

A possibility for Dafoe's laughing could be simply that they might've used archival recordings. Either way, I believe that when it comes to major casting decisions, just completely ignore them unless they are fully confirmed. This will generally avoid confusion and disagreement, as arguments over the claim's verifiability will heavily shadow the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, thinking more and seeing other articles, let's hold off on putting Dafoe in the infobox, lead, and cast list, but mention him in the prose. Does this work for everyone @Adamstom.97, Facu-el Millo, Cardei012597, InfiniteNexus, ChannelSpider, and Dcdiehardfan:? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Works for me. – ChannelSpider (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeing how other sources are even including Lizard, Daredevil, and Sandman based on the trailer, I agree on not including any actors not confirmed in the cast list. —El Millo (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed on having Dafoe in the prose instead of the cast list. IronManCap (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is best not to include Dafoe in the cast list yet, as he was not fully confirmed via the trailer or other reliable casting reports, despite the potential he might be in it. We need confirmation of his involvement independent from the trailer to include Dafoe, but we have just enough to warrant a mention in the prose. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this works well. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Works for me! I am all for this! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Lectonar: this discussion and the immediately above comments have formed a consensus regarding the exclusion of Dafoe as a cast member in the cast list, which I believe the edit war surrounding this (starting here and ending here) was one of the reasons for the protection. Would either of you considering reducing or removing the page from full protection? Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Revisit

Can we revisit this? I've gone ahead and removed Dafoe with Variety's sourcing, but in adding a bunch of trailer commentary, I've come across Total Film and /Film that explicitly say this is Dafoe's laugh. Collider's is a bit more unsure, which is what is currently being used in both the cast section and post-production section, as is EW's. Any new thoughts now seeing these (and possibly more that I haven't found)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that Dafoe's laughing could be simply be just archival recordings from the Raimi trilogy. I just do not think it is completely, concrete, definite that Dafoe will be in the film, unlike Molina who has a direct appearance in the trailer. It may be a case of Too Soon, but I can be swayed if better announcements of his direct physical involvement are found later. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely agreed. – ChannelSpider (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Great, we'll leave as is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Top billed cast

Currently, the starring cast (per trailer description + website) is Holland, Zendaya, Cumberbatch, Favreau, Balaton, and Tomei. Wouldn't it be more appropriate just these actors to be listed with bullet points in the "Cast" section for now? YgorD3 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think in this instance, since that is clearly not the end of the billing, we can use that for the first set of actors, then continue to include actors who have received billing in past films below them. I would liken that list to the "top" billing of a poster. Once an actual "full" block is seen in a trailer or a poster, we can refine this again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Does Strange's status merit changes here?

Hello again, everyone! In the OG Doctor Strange movie, we see him embrace a role as a Master of the mystic Arts who, according to Wong, "has much to learn." We have confirmation from the MCU that when he appeared in Thor:Ragnarok, he had not yet become the Sorceror Supreme, but those who worked on "Infinity War" confirmed that by the time of his appearance in that movie, he had sufficiently mastered the Mystic Arts at a level to become the Sorceror Supreme. Would it be worthwhile to find a source confirming that and to update the character description for Strange accordingly, or would it be correct to assume that Strange's status and position within the order does not play into his decision to help Peter Parker and take on a role as his mentor? I'd be fine with whatever is determined on this. I just haven't seen that question explored before, and it could explain why Strange performed the spell in question in a seemingly direct violation of his promise to Wong that he wouldn't. If Strange is indeed now senior to Wong in the order, Wong can and likely does advise and work with him, but that means Strange also isn't answering to Wong or obligated to keep that promise. The Ancient One similarly drew power from the Dark Dimension while urging Strange away from such practices, so there's an established precedent for the Sorceror Supreme to do what is necessary,even against the advice and consent of other Masters of the Mystic Arts. So I thought the question about Strange's status in the order would be worth asking. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember him being confirmed as the Sorcerer Supreme at any point and assumed that they were saving that for MoM. If you have a source confirming him then that would be something to consider. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I had thought I remembered a statement from the MCU powers-that-be on that subject after the release of Infinity War. Since I can't seem to track that down, I actually searched through Google using the search term "Kevin Feige: Is Doctor Strange the Sorceror Supreme?" And at least one reference (TVLine, which has been used as reputable sourcing for MCU content) specifically refers to cut scenes from WandaVision in which Doctor Strange would make an appearance. In reference to that cut, a TVLine article about how Doctor Strange's intended apperance in WandaVision was cut specifically refers to how the series seemed like the perfect opportunity "to introduce the Sorceror Supreme". Additionlly, as I observed elsewhere in response to a question about WandaVision, the post-credits scene of that show's finale seemed to include several nods and subtle references to Doctor Strange, which, given the fact that the MCU wanted to focus on Wanda in that finale, was essentially a subtle nod to her anticipated role in Doctor Strange 2. Aside from the TV Line article, I might suggest searching a similar term as I did, because other results did come up, some of which could confirm that, per his appearance in No Way Home, he is the Sorceror Supreme. But I thought the initial TVLine reference would be enough to start with. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The way that source uses the term suggests an out-of-universe nickname rather than confirmation that he now goes by that in the MCU. Remember that a lot of people have been referring to Wanda as the Scarlet Witch since her introduction to the MCU, but she wasn't officially known by that title until WandaVision. We probably need something that specifically points out Strange becoming the Sorceror Supreme. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would hate to base my assessment on a source that could be mistaken. So I ran the same search I mentioned, and found more sources with the same types of assertions. Since I'm still not clear about sources that Wikipeia uses for reputable information about the MCU that can be included, I am listing all sources in which I could find a mention of Strange's status of the Sorceror Supreme. Any that are not eligible for Wikipedia can simply be disregardedf as irrelevant, which is what they will be. So here are the sources I found:

• https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1174652-kevin-feige-regrets-mistake-of-whitewashing-doctor-strange-cast
• https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/wandavision-doctor-strange-written-out
• https://winteriscoming.net/2021/05/04/kevin-feige-explains-why-doctor-strange-cut-wandavision-benedict-cumberbatch/
• https://www.cbr.com/wandavision-cutting-doctor-strange-makes-sequel-better-kevin-feige/
• https://geektyrant.com/news/kevin-feige-confirms-doctor-strange-was-originally-supposed-to-appear-in-wandavision-and-explains-why-he-didnt
• https://www.thegamer.com/doctor-strange-wandavision-cameo-kevin-feige/
• https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/kevin-feige-explains-why-benedict-cumberbatch-doctor-strange-cameo-wandavision-was-cut
• https://insidethemagic.net/2021/05/doctor-strange-wandavision-jm1/
• https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/05/03/kevin-feige-says-doctor-strange-cut-from-wandavision-because-hes-white-and-male/

I knoq I said I'd be citing all the sources I could find, but in just the first page, all of these sources note specifically that the reason the Sorceror Supreme (Doctor Strange) did not make an originally-planned role in Wandavision was due to COVID-19 protocols, the fact that Cumberbatch was filming some of his parts in his role for No Way Home, and because they (MCU powers-that-be) relaized that Wanda's final face-off against Agatha needed to be the focus, rather than a cameo from Doctor Strange. And just about every reference to Doctor Strange in each of these articles specifically note that Strange was indeed the Sorceror Supreme when his planned role in WandaVision occurred. I concede I might have been mistaken in my original assertion that MCU executives had confirmed he was the Sorceror Supreme when he played a role in Infinity War and Endgame, but unless all of these sources are likewise easily proven ambiguous and/or likely mistaken, I just want to make sure I am doing my part to ensure accurate information is shared in articles that mention Doctor Strange's continued MCU role. Please let me know if none of these sources are satisfactory. I can't promise to list the next available full page of resources, but if none of these sources can be used to verify my assertions, I'd be happy to admit that my efforts on this matter were fruitless, and that I did, in fact, make a non-issue an issue. Either way, thanks for engaging with me on this. I recoognize that you are one of many editors who has a good deal more experience editing content about the MCU than I do, and I'm still learning the ropes. If nothing else, I appreciate our give-and-take about this issue and thank you again for your time. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man confirmed to be in Spider-Man: No Way Home

While talking with The Illuminerdi, JB Smoove confirmed that Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man will be back in Spider-Man: No Way Home when asked which Spider-Man he was excited to see Tom Holland meet (Andrew Garfield or Tobey Maguire): https://www.theilluminerdi.com/2021/08/23/spider-man-3-jb-smoove-electro/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 22:00, 23 August, 2021 (UTC)

The Illuminerdi is not a reliable source, per WP:MCURS; and Smoove's comment is not a solid confirmation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

74.105.162.120, see also this article: Why Marvel Won't Confirm Garfield & Maguire Are In Spider-Man: No Way Home, published not 16 days ago. Neither Sony nor Marvel have confirmed the rumours, so it is entirely unverifiable and we shouldn't be adding it. I imagine anyone who does will be unilaterally reverted. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

He also simply claims he is excited to see him, not that he truly appears in the film.Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, no reliable source has officially confirmed Maguire, Garfield, Stone, or Dunst will appear in any part of No Way Home. We just have to wait until we get concrete, indisputable evidence of their involvements with this film. Same as Cox as well. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Stone herself said she wasn't in the film, I thought that particular thing had been put to rest already. giftheck (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Villains

In the trailer Sandman and Lizard are revealed to be in the film. When the protection lock expires on August 27 should we add them to the Cast section? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No We need reliable sources only to add them. Also, there is no indication that those 2 are going to appear. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is no official indication that they appear in the film, only speculation from a few brief scenes seen in the trailer (not even clearly visible though). No reliable sources have confirmed this. Film Enthusiast (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.gamesradar.com/spider-man-no-way-home-sandman-lizard-trailer-sinister-six/ MarvelMovieFan (talk)

"Might be" isn't "is". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's speculation as well. Besides, that website isn't reliable. Film Enthusiast (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

GamesRadar+/Total Film is reliable, but as with any reliable site, they need to be stating/confirming something, not speculating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to get through to the idiots around here. Actual footage and screenshots of Dafoe and Garfield leaked, but of course, if it isn't written in the Bible, it's "speculation." --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:919E:E35D:896A:E1DE (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Cox return confirmed

Today it has been confirmed that the mysterious lawyer of Peter Parker is one else than Matt Murdock. Charlie Cox is reported to return as Daredevil in the film, so we need to add him as part of the cast. Ulises1126 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source confirming it? —El Millo (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this article from Time (deemed reliable by WP:RSP) which seemingly "confirms" the return of Matt Murdock, Sandman, and Lizard. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we should go the Collider route here. Collider, a reliable source, reported Dunst and Garfield as confirmed, but no other reliable sources took it as a confirmation, they took it as a rumor. I've seen no other reliable source treating Cox's appearance as anything other than a rumor and a theory by fans based on a scene from the trailer. —El Millo (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Time doesn't provide any sourcing or claims of an exclusive scoop for Murdock, so that may be a mistake on their part, whilst the Sandman and Lizard "confirmations" seem speculatory. Since the threshold is WP:Verifiability, not truth, it's worth pointing out that other RS treat these as speculatory: [1][2][3][4][5]. IronManCap (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you, those are not my forearms. — Charlie Cox, per a new ComicBook.com article — ChannelSpider (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Golly gee, and here I thought actors are literally paid to lie... --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:919E:E35D:896A:E1DE (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

We are going to wait for something more concrete than “those are probably his arms”. Rusted AutoParts 05:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 22 September 2021

• Under the category "Future", a fourth film is alleged to be in development. Following the citation takes you to an article which mentions nothing about a fourth film. Additionally, sources other than this claim that it is very unlikely that a fourth film is in development. The claim that a fourth film is in development also appears in the third paragraph of the article.:
• Inaccurate according to other sources, the source provided mentions nothing relevant to the claim.:

DonutHog (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done More or less, anyway. I just removed the whole future section as the first sentence failed WP:V and the rest was WP:CRYSTAL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how this wasn't looked into further. Deadline's article explicitly mentions a fourth film is in development. Deadline is a highly reliable source, and the report it is not "alleged". Other sources "claiming" a fourth is "unlikely" are assumptions and have no validity to Wikipedia. This has been discussed numerous times on this talk that nothing has disproven a fourth film is in development. Inside the Magic is an unreliable source, for one. Plus, the comments from Holland and Zendaya are notable on here for now as they correlate to the status of Holland's contract and the development status as far as the cast is aware. It has been upheld by several frequent editors of this article, and an undiscussed removal is unjustified and against consensus. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Users claiming no fourth movie is mentioned in the article may be just looking for the word "fourth", but the article was written one month after Far from Home, and explicitly says Sony is planning two more installments and Sources said there are two more Spider-Man films in the works later on, unambiguously referring to No Way Home and a fourth film. —El Millo (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Willem Dafoe confirmed in No Way Home

We've all seen the trailers, Green Goblin is making an appearance. Further source - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/spider-man-no-way-home-trailer-willem-dafoe-green-goblin-b1907631.html VinaySC (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

an appearance is all but confirmed says that source. See Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home/Archive 2#Green Goblin for why we don't include Dafoe yet. —El Millo (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal

Can we Jake Gyllenhaal as Quentin Beck/Mysterio in the cast? There's a high chance he could appear, whether it's an actual role or just archived footage from FFH, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.96.115 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

We don’t add based on high chances of there’s a reliable source to corroborate we can but there isn’t as of now. Rusted AutoParts 14:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandman

Now that the Empire magazine has hinted at it, can we add the Sandman character to the cast? Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.0.60 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hinting" is not the same thing as "verifying". And there's no rush. The best time to write about a film is after it's been released. DonQuixote (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, because the magazine cover does not explicitly confirm this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sony Marvel deal

See what you can add from this: https://screenrant.com/spiderman-sony-marvel-deal-expiration-secret-details/ Kailash29792 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in that source pertains to this article. It's all about Far from Home. —El Millo (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

New Empire info

This image has recently been making rounds on the Internet, apparently confirming that Sandman and Lizard are appearing in the film, and has even been covered by /Film. I don't have access to Empire, but per this tweet (not 100% an RS, but still a good source for info), the quote appears to have been taken out of context, with Jon Watts apparently denying their appearances as rumors. So, I've removed this info for now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked at that image and I can't see the characters anywhere in it, certainly doesn't confirm the actors involvement... none of this is reliable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: I can see the names of said actors and their characters on the first image linked by InfiniteNexus but let us wait for the magazine's release, which I think will be released on October 28. Centcom08 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have looked through sources and found Screen Rant's article most accurately explained the context of Empire's issue and what the NWH team, including Watts, actually said, and have thus added that information, plus commentators of reputable sources noting this and speculating Sandman and Lizard's appearances, as well as noting the visual references on the subscriber cover. We're not to treat this as any confirmation, but these are reports and should be acknowledged in this article like the rest, because it came from Empire, which did confirm some other details notable here, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Watts' quote is "I can confirm those are rumours" [regarding the inclusion of other Multiversal villains]. He's not outright saying that the statements made prior to his response are true or false, and for that, we should treat these claims as Watts does: as a rumour unless/until it is confirmed. I assume such direct confirmation will come soon anyway. giftheck (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

Tobey Maguire 2600:1005:B018:553D:1C6:6B9E:BCA6:EC53 (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

See numerous past discussions in archives. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Runtime

Numerous sources have confirmed the runtime as 2:30. Can this be added or does more information need to come out? MightyArms (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Citing one of those sources would be a start. DonQuixote (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's confirmed to be 2:38 MkIc (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

its for mispellng a word was spelled wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeobvious (talk • contribs) 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What mispelled word is that? Centcom08 (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Willem Dafoe

Is it not obvious that he's returning as the Green Goblin? Look at the trailer which literally shows his pumpkin bomb. And the fact that he is seen on the poster. It is clearly obvious that he is returning as Goblin.

If you refuse to add that then at least add that the Green Goblin that will be appearing is from the Raimi-Verse as he looks exactly the same. 2A02:C7F:AEBE:3A00:D001:6ECF:D6A8:FB1F (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary sources like Wikipedia work by citing and summarising reliable sources. Usually, the best time to write about a film is after it's been released. Also, please see WP:NORUSH. DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There has been no confirmation that the actor will appear.. even if the character shows up it could easily be a stuntman in the costume. Wait for official word.. the movie is not that far off. Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

But it is obvious with the poster that the Green Goblin that appears in the film will be the one from the Raimi-Verse. Don't add Dafoe to the cast but yet but at least acknowledge that the Goblin will be the Raimi version. 2A02:C7F:AEBE:3A00:78E3:B283:5A87:1825 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If you have to say "it's obvious" rather than directly quoting a reliable source, then it's probably original research. DonQuixote (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Strange 2 in No Way Home Article

Why is everybody adding that Spider-Man No Way Home has additional photography, the reference leads to a article about doctor strange 2 so don’t add it again Redsuperman819 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, stop adding a reference to additional photography for Doctor Strange 2 it’s not about no way home Redsuperman819 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The article about Dr. Strange does mention that pickup shoots were recently completed on No Way Home which seems to be be what the editor has been saying in the added text. Spanneraol (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s wrong tho because reshoots were completed months ago Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The hollywood reporter article says "recently completed" and the text in the article specifies "reshoots had been completed." both are accurate. Spanneraol (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The source states The crew involved is familiar with the Marvel method and worked on recent pickups for the upcoming Spider-Man: No Way Home Alleging that the report is false would require another source refuting THR's claims, plus see WP:VNT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Spider-Man film?

The concluding sentence of the introductory paragraph says "A fourth Spider-Man film is in development". Is there a source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.111.112.3 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

See Spider-Man: No Way Home#Future. DonQuixote (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A bad one, plus that future section contradicts it... but some people refuse to remove it from the lead anyway. Spanneraol (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Leaked images

I don't think we should be mentioning the purportedly "leaked" images in the § Post-production section. These kinds of leaks happen all the time, and we usually don't cover them on these articles. Also, the image comes from John Campea, who like all scoopers (Charles Murphy, Daniel Richtman, Grace Randolph, etc.) is unreliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Those images look like bad photoshops to me anyway.. don't think they are legit. And I definitely agree it should not be listed here. Spanneraol (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The leaks are real but their not confirmed, you know John got called by Sony about the images so that confirms they are real Redsuperman819 (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Source? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not "confirm" they are real. Sony would not want clearly doctored images out there either. Spanneraol (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

John Campea claimed in a livestream that a Sony rep contacted him to tell him that the images were real. This is 99% likely to be a legitimate leak, but if there's consensus not to include it, then it shouldn't be included. (Also, Sony wouldn't give a shit if they were fake images, fwiw) JOEBRO64 01:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

John Campea is not a reliable source for such a thing as it is in his interest to lie about this to get more publicity for himself. Sony would never confirm such a thing to him. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just making shit up. JOEBRO64 04:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, Campea is definitely not reliable. Spanneraol (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Best to err on the side of caution and not include it given there’s been multiple fake “leaks” about this film. As stated whether Campea is being truthful or not he’s not a reliable source. Rusted AutoParts 14:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize now that it probably wasn't worth adding the content now. We'll see what happens on Tuesday. JOEBRO64 04:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• THR mentioned in their post-trailer article that the leak appears to be real, fwiw JOEBRO64 02:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Strange 2

Who ever said it Doctor Stange it not Doctor Strange it is Doctor Octobus . Please answer this 41.115.16.139 (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are thinking It is Doc Ock and not Doc Strange, well both appears in the film if that is what you are saying. If you mean It is Doc Ock in Multiverse of Madness. It is wrong as it is clearly Doctor Strange film and not Doc Ock. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

It would be nice to add the official UK release date is now the 15th December 185.104.136.50 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  melecie  t - 08:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It was confirmed through Sony Pictures' UK arm. Twitter announcement. giftheck (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I will wait for the announcement of the world premiere because it will be ahead of any public release in any country. For now, I'll refrain from adding the UK release. Centcom08 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is already noted in the Release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Short description is too long

The current short description, Upcoming superhero film co-produced by Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures, is too long. Per WP:SHORTDESC, short descriptions should be 40 characters max.

It doesn't matter what other MCU articles do (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - if those pages have long short descriptions, then they should be fixed too.

Remember that short descriptions should only provide the briefest summary of the subject and serve as disambiguators. "co-produced by Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures" is overkill; even the genre is unnecessary imo.

I'm not sure why so many editors think superhero articles ought to be exempt from standard Wikipedia policy. Popcornfud (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We could switch it to Upcoming film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, then when it gets released we'll use Superhero film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. —El Millo (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Those would both be over the word limit.

The standard approach is just to write "{year} film". Why do MCU movies need special treatment? They're just movies. Popcornfud (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you counting spaces as characters? Because without counting spaces the first one is 40 and the second one is 41. WP:SHORTDESC says about 40 characters, and 41 certainly qualifies as about 40 characters. {year} film says too little, we could still add the genre or the director. Is this standard approach written somewhere? Because I've found many GA-status articles that don't stick to that, e.g.: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone says 2001 fantasy film directed by Chris Columbus; Saving Private Ryan says 1998 film by Steven Spielberg; Inglourious Basterds says 2009 film by Quentin Tarantino; Inception says 2010 film by Christopher Nolan. —El Millo (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Even the examples in WP:SHORTDESC aren't that short: Publication: "[year] [type of publication] by [author or director]" (Examples: "1983 novel by John Irving", "2017 film by Jordan Peele", "2006 role-playing video game"). and later it suggests 1964 musical film, 1988 novel by Penelope Fitzgerald, and 1981 arcade game. —El Millo (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you counting spaces as characters? Yep - as does the shortdesc helper tool.

Lots of Wikipedia articles contain problems, even FAs. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Per past conversations at WP:FILM, the general consensus is to have the year and "film". Some editors also favor adding directors and genres - but whatever we do there's no need to make it anything other than short. Popcornfud (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What part of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you want to rest your case here? Centcom08 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry? Popcornfud (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cites a bunch of examples of invalid arguments. Which one are you referring to here? —El Millo (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I only ever cite the invalid arguments. Popcornfud (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Which one in particular for this instance? —El Millo (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OTHERSUFFEXISTS isn't for everything, it isn't a reason to just ignore everything. There are generalized common practices that shouldn't just be ignored, and these ones seem to agree with what is advised in SHORTDESC, so they are correct to cite as reference. The shortest we can go while still having some substance is Upcoming superhero film and then 2021 superhero film, because for MCU films the genre seems more relevant than the director. —El Millo (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine with that. Popcornfud (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming"

I really don't think we should be calling No Way Home a sequel to Homecoming and Far From Home in the opening paragraph. Obviously it's in the same series, but No Way Home isn't a direct follow-up to Homecoming, it's a direct follow-up to Far From Home. By this logic, we should saying that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the sequel to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in the first paragraph of the Deathly Hallows article. Do we do that? No, because that's ridiculous. Other MCU films doing it is also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and inconsistent too, as Endgame describes it as only a sequel to Infinity War and not the previous two Avengers movies), and it's not like we're removing Homecoming from the lede entirely—it's mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph. JOEBRO64 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it should say something about being the third film in the MCU Spider-Man Trilogy that began with Homecoming instead? Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

When originally dealing with Endgame and Thor: Love and Thunder, we had a discussion on including up to two previous films within a franchise in the MCU. That way, Infinity War is the sequel to The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, but Endgame is the direct sequel to Avengers: Infinity War. This is local consensus for MCU-related articles, so this discussion should at the very least be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. —El Millo (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/Archive 6#Organically linking the Phase articles in the lead (or elsewhere), where it was one of many things discussed. —El Millo (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: Kindly read this discussion, there is already a consesus for any MCU-related article in regards to their lead paragraph before so probably you might have missed this in the past. Centcom08 (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This and "direct sequel" strike me as the kind of awkward, jargonistic, overdetailed and hypercorrect phrasing that is common across superhero movie and video game articles. Things quickly get into diminishing returns when we try too hard to cover every possible permutation. Let's keep it simple per WP:PLAINENGLISH and remember that we write for the general reader, not franchise fans. This film is the sequel to last film. Popcornfud (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the information Facu-el Millo provided. There is no harm in discussing sequels within a trilogy of films in the lead as I see it. Once we get past three (as was the case with Endgame and will be with Love and Thunder) reducing then to the most recent preceding film makes sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying we shouldn't be discussing a trilogy. The issue is that describing a film as the sequel to a film it's not a direct successor to is, as Popcornfud put it, being hypercorrect and needlessly fastidious. This is a sequel to Far From Home, not Homecoming. Listing them both is bloat and obscures the point. I also find three sequels being the limit is bizarre, especially when you consider something like Thor: Ragnarok has nothing in common with the first Thor and really follows up on no plot points from that movie, other than starring the same character. It's giving too much weight to a film that the film in question isn't directly following. JOEBRO64 18:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, this should be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force because it impacts many MCU-related articles. —El Millo (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

Please link Dr. Otto octavius in cast to the new Wiki page of Dr. Otto Octavius (Marvel Cinematic Universe) 122.164.94.108 (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That article should be promptly draftified and redirected to Draft:Otto Octavius (Sam Raimi film series). —El Millo (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We can consider add the link if the article survives AFD. RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans

I'm still in disagreement with the decision to include Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans on the cast list. Firstly, the only linked source on the No Way Home page is an Entertainment Weekly article in which Sandman and Lizard are mentioned by way of their previous actors, but unlike Molina, Dafoe, and Foxx, aren't said to be reprising their roles. Recent material, including the new trailer, has indeed confirmed that their characters will return, but it's unknown whether we'll even see or hear Ifans or Church outside of their superhero forms, or whether they'll be portrayed by voice and/or person by different actors -- until there's official confirmation before release. Second, Sandman or Lizard's CGI forms simply "looking like" Church and Ifans isn't valid enough. That's like saying Goblin on the posters looked like Dafoe, so he must be portrayed by the same actor. Snowshredder140 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree... still no confirmation that the actors themselves appear in the film. Spanneraol (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is confirmation from Variety; villains from previous “Spider-Man” franchises, including Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin from 2002’s “Spider-Man,” Alfred Molina’s Otto Octavius from 2004’s “Spider-Man 2,” Thomas Haden Church’s Sandman from 2007’s “Spider-Man 3,” Rhys Ifans’ the Lizard from 2012’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” and Jamie Foxx’s Electro from 2014’s “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.”. Mike210381 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Variety article is not confirmation. This is a similar issue as [Variety's article] for August's teaser trailer, which also listed the characters that will be returning by use of their previous actors (i.e. Molina's Doc Ock, Foxx's Electro, Dafoe's Goblin), whether or not they were officially confirmed by primary sources (which outlets like Variety aren't) or a rock-solid report from a secondary source. Yes, the Goblin was further confirmed in August, but not his original actor, despite articles like Variety's using said actor's name as a means of referring to him. We have yet to hear from any cast, crew, or marketing regarding Church or Ifans' involvement. Snowshredder140 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree we still do not have sources that confirm their involvement (the actors specifically, in this particular film). I'm not even sure anyone is playing them; Sandman might just be fully CG. As of now, I would be in favor of removing. Rhino131 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed them your welcome and if they change it again I’ll restore my edit Redsuperman819 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of hand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All this edit-warring is getting out of hand. At this point, I think the best thing to do would be to either delete this entire page till the movie comes out or lock it properly until the movie releases. There's just too much going on at this point. 2A02:C7F:AEBE:3A00:D595:9A51:956C:8380 (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they threatening to block me from editing because I erased Church and Ifans from the cast list and they want to keep them, but it’s not confirmed that the actors are returning, only the characters are confirmed so yeah I agree with you 10000000000% Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And also they think discussing the my edit is gonna solve the problem 😒 Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page seems to support removing them, and the people who keep reverting it do not seem to be participating in the talk page discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You've been warned because of your edit warring and personal attacks, nothing else. And we don't delete articles over minor content disputes, so this conversation isn't going anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

😒🥱 Redsuperman819 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You know the information is wrong, I’m not dealing with this mess no more so im gonna just ignore what you say 😒🥱 Redsuperman819 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not part of this debate, so you don't have a need to argue with me to begin with. I was just circling back to see how things were progressing and thought I'd chime in that this proposal isn't supported by our deletion policies. I imagine the irony of you supporting full protection to prevent edit warring when you've done more reverts than everyone else combined is probably lost on you, so I'll leave it at that... Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

😒🥱 Redsuperman819 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thomas & Rhys aren’t confirmed to be returning but if you want to be wrong and made fun of that’s fine, I don’t care anymore, you can just send the wrong information just like every Wikipedia article, bye ✌️ 😒🥱 Redsuperman819 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point. It's best to just delete this page until the film releases. There's too much debating going on who's in it and who isn't. So I suggest to either delete the page and remake at a later date when the film is out OR lock it so no one can edit until the film releases. 2A02:C7F:AEBE:3A00:D595:9A51:956C:8380 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting page over dispute on the article's content is not supported by WP:DEL-CONTENT Centcom08 (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, not a valid deletion rationale. A deletion nomination like that would be quick-failed. Again, this is a simple content dispute, with a relatively small amount of effort put towards solving. There left no reason why people should be giving up or getting so heated. This is not some age-old sensitive political/social/ideological debate that will never be resolved. It's a minor debate on whether or not actors are part of a super hero movie. It's largely minor and inconsequential. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Liar, talk all descriptive you want serge cause I’m not listening, you got on this guy’s nerves and mine, so I’m done, btw, We ALL KNOW Sandman & The Lizard are returning but not the actors, ✌️😒🥱 Redsuperman819 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you struggle with reading comprehension? Why are you calling me a liar when I'm not taking a side in the debate? That makes zero sense. The only thing I said is that this is a content dispute, which is objectively true. Furthermore, you're wasting so much time acting defiant with me that you haven't even bothered engaging with Joebro a couple sections above, who is trying to actually engage in constructive discussion with you. Go talk with him, not me. I won't say it again - either discuss constructively, or drop it. That includes starting to assumr good faith of others, which is also required. Anymore of this unconstructive nonsense and your account is going to receive a short block. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"It is intended to be the sequel"

This phrasing is awkward and unnecessary.

• It isn't intended to be the sequel - it is the sequel (that's what reliable sources say) until something else happens. If the film is canceled or something then we can change this.
• It doesn't fix the perceived problem. Readers will not think "ah, it says 'intended to be' because the film has not been released yet". They'll just think it's strange wording.

Let's get rid. Popcornfud (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the practice to used intended for an upcoming film. Once it is released, it will be removed. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Where/when was the consensus for this practice agreed? Is it used for anything other than superhero movies? I have worked on literally hundreds of film articles and I have never seen it before. Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "intended" is a poor choice of words. "Upcoming" or "as yet unreleased" might be more precise in meaning. DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we chould use "set" instead of intended, the same we use it to say it's set to be released in... —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we say "upcoming" in the first sentence, so I think it's safe to just be simple from then on. IMO there's nothing misleading about describing this film as a sequel even though it isn't released yet. It's a sequel, that's what it is. Popcornfud (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any further opinions? If not, any objections if I remove this? Popcornfud (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is poor.. it isn't "intended" to be anything.. it actually IS the sequel. Even if it never gets released it's still a sequel and the wording would become "it is the unreleased sequel to".. in this case "the upcoming sequel" is probably most appropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we can remove it, they are right in that it's excessive and unnecessary if we are already saying it is an upcoming film. Still, I'm pinging other regular editors for their insight, since this decision will affect other articles on upcoming MCU media: @Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, Trailblazer101, and InfiniteNexus: —El Millo (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it still has to be a case by case basis per each upcoming film. At least in Marvel's case, they can present a film one way initially, and then as it get closer to release and more details are given, it becomes apparent it may be something else, or something in addition to. For example, The Marvels upon initial learning of it, was only thought to be an intended sequel to Captain Marvel. But after we got the name, it appears to be a sequel to Captain Marvel and continuations of Ms. Marvel and to an extent WandaVision. So I don't think we go through all upcoming projects and remove "intended to be", but if we remove it here, sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, the "intended to be" part is used as we don't always know what they will definitively be right away. Like the use of "upcoming", the property has yet to release, so saying it is the sequel may give off some misinterpretation that it is the next film despite it not having been released. In this instance, No Way Home could also serve as a continuation of the past Spider-Man films. We can leave it for the time being, but the film is releasing in around 2 weeks, so I can see the reason why it could be removed at this time, but I think we can just as easily wait until it premieres (which is undoubtedly less than that time, if not by a few days), so there's not much harm in waiting. I don't see any need to remove it from every other MCU article, though. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue will resolve itself when the film is released and - surprise - turns out to definitively be the sequel to the previous film, but as this is apparently the set wording used across other Marvel movie articles, it's something we need to resolve.

Really, I just think the whole idea is silly - a kind of tree-falling-in-the-woods nonsense. By the same logic, we also ought to write "Spider-Man: No Way Home is intended to be an American superhero film released in 2021", "It is intended to be distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing", and "It is intended to star Tom Holland". Popcornfud (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. Even though the film has not been released yet, it is still the sequel to Homecoming and Far From Home. We don't say The film ... will star Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man alongside ..., despite the fact that the actors haven't technically "appeared" in the film yet. Regarding Favre and Trailblazer101's points about The Marvels and older Spider-Man films, we're just going with what we know thus far. If there are any later developments, we can just update the wording then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. JOEBRO64 17:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Box Office Projection

I want to delete the part where it says that "No Way Home outpaced Endgame in it's first day of pre-sales" because it didn't. It actually had the biggest pre-sales since Endgame (which I would say would put it in 2nd place of highest first day of pre-sales). Here's my source, straight from Fandango= https://twitter.com/Fandango/status/1465727327267078144?s=20

Please allow me to make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:91:0:116:79fe:e9e4:ab42:f4ea (talk) 18:25, 30 November, 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The source says it outpaced Endgame. JOEBRO64 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Only Deadline did but they twisted the words (and were the only ones to claim such thing). The most professiona; take on this would be to cite the main source, Fandango which reported the following: "#SpiderManNoWayHome had Fandango's biggest first 24-hours in pre-sales since Avengers: Endgame." https://twitter.com/Fandango/status/1465727327267078144?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.141.24 (talk) 21:43, 30 November, 2021 (UTC)

Final Spider-Man MCU film?

Since there’s no official confirmation at all Spider-Man will continue in the MCU should this be considered the final MCU Spider-Man film? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation that it is the final film, so no. Spanneraol (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's rather closer to the opposite, since Amy Pascal said there are more Spider-Man films with Marvel Studios to come. —El Millo (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you get my newest message “Insiders” said that there’s been no official confirmation despite Pascal’s official statement. I’m just unsure of what’s legit right now and what isn’t. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

But it was just said there’s no official confirmation despite what Pascal said. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No confirmation of further films doesn't mean confirmation of no further films. And no confirmation doesn't mean that what Pascal said means nothing. Pascal is the producer. —El Millo (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing the part up top before the premise talking about another trilogy.

Is that our way of saying that they’re not doing anything? I mean shouldn’t that be kept up top for right now? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Poster

Now that there are two teaser posters, which one do we use? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Most likely the new one because it’s probably the official poster Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They're both official. I don't know if we should be calling the new one a "teaser poster" as well, but this is definitely not the theatrical release poster because there's no billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The one released previously with just Spider-Man and without Doctor Strange seems more of the "teaser" poster in my view, but neither are the "release poster" so it honestly doesn't matter as long as there isn't warring over which one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain the differences between Teaser poster and official poster? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We should use the new official one revealed today. https://images.thedirect.com/media/photos/FFBVo2XaMAA8ydw.jpg MarvelMovieFan (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a Japanese theatrical release poster so I prefer using the official English poster released by Sony. Centcom08 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are all official posters (i.e. created by Sony), but like Centcom08 said the one released today is just the Japanese international poster. We usually stick to the U.S. release poster because this is an American film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ijick, kindly refrain from edit warring as this is a discussion you can read to understand how film poster works. Thank you! Centcom08 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

According to sources, that is the official theatrical release poster. But, I won't use it. How, do we know which is the official poster for the film? Thank you.

This poster says both "Coming soon" and "Only in Cinemas" (which is not really an American phrase), versus the existing one we have which says "Exclusively in theaters" (an American phrase) plus the date. So that one is preferable. They are both teaser posters anyways, and we'll probably get the theatrical release one Monday along with tickets going on sale. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the tweet from Sony Pictures Japan with the international poster. No sources indicate that this is the the official theatrical release poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that poster was posted by the American Sony Pictures social media with the December 17 date AxGRvS (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Tom Holland on the Graham Norton Show, his brother's scenes have been cut from the film.

Source since the clips uploaded officially don't cover that moment: https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/03/tom-hollands-brother-harry-cut-from-spider-man-no-way-home-15714537/

I don't think we should remove the casting but it definitely be mentioned. HOWEVER - I am aware that, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources the Metro is classed as a generally non-reliable source. Personally, I might wait for a more reliable publication to report on this before making the change. giftheck (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, there's no rush to include this and we'll have to wait for a reliable source to report on it. —El Millo (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant reported it, so I have added it to the article. —El Millo (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Daredevil "confirmed"

"If you were to see Daredevil in upcoming things, Charlie Cox, yes, would be the actor playing Daredevil. Where we see that, how we see that, when we see that, remains to be seen". Is that tongue-in-cheek or serious? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It only means that if ever Marvel Studios going to use Daredevil as part of their project then Charlie Cox will be the actor, 100℅. It doesn't mean that he will appear in No Way Home (yet) so it remains hidden in the Cast section of the article until we watch the film together and find it out ourselves. Centcom08 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it "Lizard" or "The Lizard"

Dr. Curt Connors is listed on this page as Dr. Curt Connors/Lizard, but for The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) page, he is listed as Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard, so should I change it to that for this page? Advofspec (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Change info-box release date section to include UK release date of 15th December 2021 MoonyCekcu (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Only the world premiere and release date in the country of origin (US) need to be in the infobox. — Starforce¹³ 21:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Singles

So here's something really weird. The track "Arachnoverture" from the film's score was released as a single on Thursday, per this source. The same source also reported that a second single titled "Exit Through the Lobby" would be released yesterday. But as Favre1fan93 noted here, both tracks appear to have been removed from Spotify, YouTube, and other platforms. After some digging, I was still able to find the links to both tracks (1: Spotify, YT; 2: Spotify, YT), but none are playable for me. I don't know if this is a U.S.-only thing, so are the links playable for other editors? If not, should we hide or remove the info from the article? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Favre has just hidden the info. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @InfiniteNexus: I've gone ahead in my edit just before this on the article and commented them out. I found what you did, them on Spotify and YouTube, but unavailable. We should probably hold off until they are available again, and when ever that is, I don't know if we could confidently say they "released" on the 9th or 10th, respectively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The music was unplayable as well here on my end (the Philippines) Centcom08 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Billing block

The new poster doesn't include a billing block. The only thing we have for the cast is the order in the SpiderManMovie and Sony Pictures websites, which excludes Dafoe, Molina, Foxx, Chruch, and Ifans. What we do? AxGRvS (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I say we work off of Sony Pictures' cast order until the film releases and we see the onscreen credits. Snowshredder140 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree but I did that and my edit was reverted AxGRvS (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We go by the poster billing block, it's likely that soon a version of the poster with a billing block will appear. There's WP:NORUSH to change the approach. —El Millo (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious for this film since they are trying their best to hold back actor appearances, if they will not release a poster with a billing block until after the opening day of the film? That would be a bit unheard of, but I think a possibility. While it is still likely we'll get a final final poster between now and the 17th, should we not, we should used the order in the titles/main on end of the film (with caution given to any actors appearing in a grouping ie their name is not the only one appearing on the screen at that moment [those actors are generally not in poster billings]). And then finally, way down the line, the physical media of the film can be used to determine a billing if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've many times seen a final poster without a billing block be later released with a billing block. Same art, basically the same poster, except for the billing block being added. —El Millo (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

With all this uncertainty, maybe we shouldn't assume that this is the theatrical release poster and just call it a promotional poster instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

With the recent "Return of the Villains" video it seems the billing block is Holland, Zendaya, Cumberbatch, Batalon, Favreau, and Tomei, just like the film's official websites AxGRvS (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Guys, we have a billing block, taken outside the premiere event (by a verified reporter). If you zoom into the second image, it looks like they're using the same billing order as the one on the NWH site. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's still on the teaser poster, and as we've discussed, there will probably be an updated one post-release, but this is a start. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That's actually a brand new poster. But they're doing a bang up graphics arts job between all these different posters with the same poses its hard to keep them all straight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

MJ's credit:

I think MJ needs to be credited as Michelle "MJ" Jones, as that's her name Advofspec (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

She should be credited as MJ as that is what the credits say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors all official credits from billing order to credited name. AlienChex (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No Way Home Spoliers

When will No Way Home Spoliers be added to this page, for example in the case that Tobey Maguire showed up in No Way Home, when would he be added to the wikipedia? On the 17th or after? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisrussian (talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the 16th as it'll be in general release by Thursday evening. DonQuixote (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't particularly bothered by spoilers as people visiting this page anytime after today are likely looking for plot leaks. The plot will go up whenever someone who has seen the movie writes one up, but most will be extremely unverified until the 17th. AlienChex (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In the UK it is on 15th by the way. Mike210381 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who have watched the film can add the film's plot (as per WP:SPOILER) but make sure that it is correct as to avoid the repeat of what happened to Eternals when someone added a fake plot and got called out by media. Centcom08 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Editors: Jeffrey Ford and Leigh Folsom Boyd. It says so on the poster (by a verified source): https://twitter.com/BrandonDavisBD/status/1470439136691515396/photo/2 98.5.41.204 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That tweet is not a reliable source, and the poster is far too small to make out clearly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Tobey Maguire Confirmed

Credits from today's premiere just confirmed that Tobey Maguire is in the movie. Premiere Credits leak: https://twitter.com/Moth_Culture/status/1470642070045999106 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We need a reliable source since Twitter is considered a self-published source, which is not acceptable (as per WP:SELFPUBLISH Centcom08 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. Even Wikipedia is a self-publish source. Guess even Wikipedia is unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 15:56, December 14, 2021 (UTC)

Which is why we don't cite other wikipedia articles as reliable sources. Spanneraol (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Fan Service

Idk shouldn't it redirect to the "Fan Service" page lol 50.29.156.117 (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers

No 'No Way Home' Spoilers

Here's a request to Wikipedia editors. Can you kindly not leak or spoil anything for atleast 5 days after the movie has been released. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.37.114 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you don't want spoilers, don't visit Wikipedia pages. 2405:205:C909:A238:648A:9BDF:B86B:EF96 (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say how Wikipedia works? Where does it say that Wikipedia has to post spoilers on the day of the movie release? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.171.194.61 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:SPOILER. Anyone who watched the film starting today can post it on the article. Centcom08 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The article WP:SPOILER doesn't mention when spoilers can be added to an article. So it conflicts with your words "who watched the film starting today". You might need to re-read the article once again before you refer it to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.171.194.61 (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming the unsigned comments are all the anonymous user who has not signed their comments, but as per WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." It does not matter who has seen the film or when. The things in the article have been reported on by sources that are reliable for this subject. Ergo, it is not acceptable to remove them. I would wager that the full plot will appear tomorrow, when the film starts releasing to general audiences and it's easier to write a proper plot section. If you don't want to be spoiled, it's best to stay away from this article. giftheck (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please No Spoilers

Please don't spoil the film please. For example, if Batman appears in No Way Home, I want to be surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Sucks for people who want to go in blind, but then maybe don't read the Wikipedia article.giftheck (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Stick to Fandom wikis. Don't read Wikipedia. 2806:265:40A:B644:E4ED:38EA:6081:CD6 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't Spoil No Way Home

Spider-Man: No Way Home official sources have officially warned not to spoil the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.223 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This and this  ? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Those warnings were directed towards social media platforms, and unless something changed in the last week, Wikipedia is not a social media platform. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_social_networking_site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That's an essay. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey dumbass stop spoiling No Way Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. We only care about reliable sources, spoilers are not our concern here. Spanneraol (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

They also have Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site too, which serves as a counterpoint. Regardless, WP:SPOILER is at play here. giftheck (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

at the end MJ and Ned don’t know who he is 2603:9000:7007:FFF3:C1DD:55AE:A1E:9FF0 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Cox cast mention

The mention of Charlie Cox has a bunch of writing mistakes and missing words. Somebody fluent in English who can do so should give it a once over. XeCyranium (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Maguire and Garfield

Someone removed them from the page. Should they go back on? FaithfulDog1 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No, their appearance in the movie is not yet confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are confirmed. [6]. Spanneraol (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

They are confirmed, but putting them back is a bad idea. It can spoil the movie to readers. Maybe put it in after a week. HARded2000 (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@HARded2000 You have a point there. 103.146.225.217 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Make sure to keep an eye on Spanneraol for around a week. Undo any spoilers he puts in until the week ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxyofh4rd (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Spanneraol guy did it again. He posted spoilers. What a jerk. 103.146.225.217 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

We should probably report him. It seems like he's using his high reputation just to ruin stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxyofh4rd (talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

He just replied.

"We are an encyclopedia, we don't have deal with protecting spoilers here. Spanneraol (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." So, if you hate spoilers, then GET OUT of the page for Spider-Man: No Way Home! LancedSoul (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxyofh4rd (talk • contribs)

These Wikipedia editors do not deserve good things.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.225.217 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Report for what? You are the guys violating wikipedia policy, not me. "High reputation"?? LOL Spanneraol (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already reported this IP to the admins. Best leave this discussion alone for a while, and contribute to discussions above about this subject of spoilers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot Summary?

I can't find anything on WP:FILMPLOT about when is the appropriate time to write a plot summary, but it appears that the summary that some editors are trying to put on the page is highly inaccurate to the film and written by someone who has not been to the premiere. Should we allow it to be on or would it be in the best interest to revert anyone trying to add a summary until the wide release on Friday? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The plot in general is an uncomfortable read, it's gotten better over the last few edits but lots of sentences are still broken, its going into details it should be going into. However, at this point it needs more fixing rather than being removed altogether. We should probably also figure out a better way to distinct which Peter/Spider-Man the plot is talking about. --YannickFran (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes the different Peters is very confusing in the plot summary and also the writer keeps switching randomly between "Peter" and "Parker"... pick one and stick with it... definitely needs a re-write to fix these issues. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph has "In the ensuring battle, May is critically injured by the Goblin", which doesn't make any sense. It needs to be changed from "ensuring battle" to "ensuing battle". 124.37.83.250 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit

Can someone who isn't an idiot and understands grammar update the plot synopsis, please? 108.183.6.8 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Can i have edit access please Tuandinhminh1234 (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Spell plot point

After the spell is cast Parker didn’t assume it had worked. Strange finds out Peter didn’t call MIT to challenge the rejections and berates him for asking for a spell first. 31.124.31.219 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I did that an hour-or-so ago. I did not see your talk page post at first, so I'm only replying now. SwanX1 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The Queensboro Bridge?

Just came back from the movie. Doctor Octopus vs Spider-man takes place at the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. I tracked it down based on the road signs.

Though I do recognise the queensboro bridge as appearing in the Movie.

What do we think? 2A02:C7C:340E:E200:A530:E5FF:992C:F845 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how this relates to the Wikipedia page, but yes, it looked like it. Did you think it should be mentioned? I don't think it's of any relevance. SwanX1 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ned leeds calls other Peter parker

Actually he doesn't summon them from another universe he does summon them from other places in same universe as Andrew mentioned it that's came yesterday and roamed streets and knew that this not my universe" so they already came when the spell happend. So, It must be changed to this Ned leeds not had powers to summon them from another universe and its not possible in mcu. 2409:4072:20C:DB4D:0:0:152F:70B1 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Track listing

As I am trying as hard as possible to avoid spoilers, could someone please add in the track listing of the score as detailed here? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but need to fill "total length". — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 05:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Where should the post-credits scene be?

It's currently added at the end of the plot section, however it doesn't tie into any other part of the movie, because it's a teaser trailer for the DSMOM movie. SwanX1 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the post-credits scene has been removed by Noelephant SwanX1 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It was removed because it doesn't belong there. The sentence itself even included why it isn't relevant. It's a "teaser trailer", that is by definition not part of the movie. --YannickFran (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that, however it still is relevant as it is a post-credits scene in the movie. I'm not saying it should be under the plot, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere, I am not sure where. SwanX1 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a scene, it's a trailer. It's standalone--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I looked at the Captain America TFA page for any sort of precedent the site may have set with the Avengers teaser trailer. What I found is that it's mentioned in the Theatrical subsection of the Release section, however I don't know how much weight of its mention is due to the apparent leak of said trailer at the time.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

I want to remove andrew and tobeys name from that because it's spoiling the fun. 122.177.106.44 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Spoiler. Wikipedia has no reason to care for spoilers--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Men

Will it be better if the two other Spider-Men were given their actors so that there will be no confusion? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In the film, they referred to each other as Peter One (Holland), Peter Two (Maguire), Peter Three (Garfield). — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 03:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence of this article makes no grammatical sense

Hello again, everyone! The opening sentence in this article uses confusing phrasing and is not well-formed grammatically. Let me quote the part of the first sentence of the plot summary that is problematic, then detail why it is confusing and not well-formed. The beginning of the article states: "Following Quentin Beck / Mysterio's framing of murder and relevance of his identity to the world,[N 1] Peter Parker, his aunt May, MJ and Ned Leeds are interrogated due to Mysterio's actions, but all charges are dropped due to lawyer Matt Murdock." My understanding of policies relating to movies in genral and sequels to other movies in particular is that the plot desription shouldn't assume on behalf of those reading the article that they will automatically understand this movie is picking up where the last one left off. "Mysterio's framing of murder and relevanve of his identity to the world" is also problematic, because it fails to convey the fact of who Mysterio is framing and why. There's nothing in that phrasing to indicate the sentence refers to Peter Parker. Also, the definition of the wod "relevance" is "the quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate." I think what was meant to be conveyed is that Mysterio framed Spider-Man for his (Mysterio's) murder, and revealed his identity as Peter Parker to to the world. As currently written, the context is not clear, and the grammar (or in this case the lack thereof) is both atrocious and inappropriate. Moving on, the sentence fails to explain why MJ, Ned, and Aunt May Parker were interrogated as the result of Mysterio's accusations. Are they supposedly complict or accomplices to or accessories of Peter's alleged "crimes" in this matter? If so, why is that the case? "All charges are dropped due to lawyer Matt Murdock" does nothing to indicate who Matt Murdock is or what he did on behalf of Ned, Peter, MJ and Aunt May that led to the charges being dropped. A lot of this wording is problematic because it presupposes the average reader will understand what the wording thereof means. I'm not suggesting in any way that this sentence needs to be "dumbed down". To the contrary: I am suggesting that the sentence should be "smartened up" to eliminate confusing wording and to clarify the meaning and context. Maybe this is an overanalysis on my part, but I can say that in my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor, that is the most confusing and poorly-formed phrasing of a sentence I've ever comr across here. No context, incorrect phrasing, and grammatically atrocious structure. I'd welcome any changs anyone can suggest. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The plot section does not open the article--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence has been rewritten to be a little clearer. As to the whys and wherefores, the film doesn't explain it much. DonQuixote (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021 (2)

There is Also a Post Credit Scene, Which Shows the Teaser for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness ODDJOBSGIN (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

CinemaScore

This Deadline article has stated that the film received an A+ CinemaScore, but the CinemaScore website doesn't list the film. Should we add the information or wait for the official release? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot update (?)

With Spider-Man's identity now revealed, our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is unmasked and no longer able to keep his normal life, as Peter Parker, a secret while being a superhero. When Peter asks for Doctor Strange for help, his situation quickly became even more dangerous, forcing him to discover what it truly means to be a superhero. Demi vlchk (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

In the Plot section, it states that Peter Parker's identity as Spider-Man was "pubicly revealed.". It should say that it was "publicly revealed." Mphil67 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire

Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire should be added as featured actors in this film. I've seen 3 Spidermen in multiple trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:1:8DC:49EF:AAB5:8385:61A1 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are unsourced rumors, please see the plethora of past discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those rumors are proven true as shown in these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1-L5Q0ov80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAq-RcF8n8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JQJ32-LYfg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:1:D5C:A138:EAE4:3DFA:A761 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are, embarrassingly fake. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We don’t include actors in credits unless there are reliable, independent sources to support inclusion. To this point, there are none, only rumors. Spf121188 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. They will not appear in the credits unless official verified sources confirm, or their names appear in the credits of the actual movie. We will know in a few short days whether they are even in the movie or not AlienChex (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Credits from today's premiere just confirmed that Tobey Maguire is in the movie. Premiere Credits leak: https://twitter.com/Moth_Culture/status/1470642070045999106

I can confirm that both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield are in the film. SwanX1 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I can also confirm that Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield reprise their respective roles as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. 2600:6C5D:0:A41:31C1:50D1:6682:F5D6 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This soon after release, we should not be adding Tobey and Andrew to the featured actors section or the introduction paragraph to protect those who have not yet seen the film and may just be looking for information such as runtime, box office performance, and critical reception. Totalgraduater (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

This soon after release, we should not be adding Tobey and Andrew to the starring actors section or the introduction paragraph to protect those who have not yet seen the film and may just be looking for information such as runtime, box office performance, and critical reception. These details may be moved to the Plot, Cast, Production, Marketing, and Future sections.

- Change “The film is directed by Jon Watts and written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, and stars Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man alongside Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau, Jamie Foxx, Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Benedict Wong, Tony Revolori, Marisa Tomei, Andrew Garfield, and Tobey Maguire.” to “The film is directed by Jon Watts and written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, and stars Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man alongside Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau, Jamie Foxx, Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Benedict Wong, Tony Revolori, and Marisa Tomei.” - Under STARRING, remove Andrew Garfield and Tobey Macguire from the end of the list for the time being- at least another week. - Change “No Way Home explores the concept of the multiverse and ties the MCU to past Spider-Man film series, with numerous actors—including previous Spider-Man actors Maguire and Garfield—reprising their roles from the Spider-Man films directed by Sam Raimi and Marc Webb. The return of Maguire and Garfield was the subject of speculation, and Sony, Marvel, and the cast attempted to conceal their involvement despite numerous leaks.” to “No Way Home explores the concept of the multiverse and ties the MCU to past Spider-Man film series, with numerous actors reprising their roles from the Spider-Man films directed by Sam Raimi and Marc Webb.“ Totalgraduater (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't edit articles to avoid spoilers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate, here’s the policy WP:SPOILER--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

With great power

May's words seems unnecessary, they just lengthen the summary AxGRvS (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That phrase is an important, notable, defining moment in Peter Parker's life and also plays a big role in the movie connecting MCU's Peter Parker to the others. — Starforce¹³ 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to put my opinion out here -- Mentioning May telling Peter-One that "With Great Power, There Must Also Come Great Responsibility" is important thematically to the story (and thus the plot). Peter wouldn't make the choices he does in the third act without that final exhortation by May, and it's an important part of Spider-Man lore, regardless of the medium. And it needn't be wordy, as Buh6173 shows. It. Needs. To. Stay.

Ooznoz (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Ooznoz

It's not about it's important to Spider-Man (which it is) but it doesn't add nothing relevant to THIS plot summary. AxGRvS (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also May's words are already mentioned in the 'With great power' article, it's just not notable here, for this summary AxGRvS (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is notable because it's Spider-Man. This is in the Tobey Maguire film and (I assume) the Andrew Garfield film. It's from the first Spider-Man story back in 1962, and it's practically become a motif for the character, regardless of medium. A brief mention in this plot summary is important, and it doesn't detract at all. Ooznoz (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Ooznoz

I think it's ridiculous to claim that the version of the statement the movie provides is only notable for the statement's page but not the page of the movie it played out in--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No description for the post-credit scenes

It contains Doctor Strange 2's trailer with Elizabeth Olsen. It needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:400B:10F4:C493:BE4:E99E:4FA4 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a post-credits scene, but a trailer for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, similar to The Avengers's trailer at the end of Captain America: The First Avenger. It is not part of the plot of the film. —El Millo (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Marvel's official designations for Raimi and TASM Spider-Men

Marvel has given official designations for the Raimi Spider-Man and TASM Spider-Man.

Raimi's Spider-Man is named Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man: https://www.marvel.com/characters/friendly-neighborhood-spider-man

TASM Spider-Man is named The Amazing Spider-Man: https://www.marvel.com/characters/the-amazing-spider-man

Should the character names be edited in the cast section to reflect this? Or is what's there enough? giftheck (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. They are still credited as "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" in the film. YgorD3 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've put such info in each of their descriptions after the "Peter 2/3" notes, where this is most appropriate, since we don't get these names in the film or the credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Referring to Ned as Leeds in plot

Unlike writing for real people, there's absolutely no policy or guidelines dictating to refer to fictional characters by their last names. For characters like Peter Parker, who is frequently referred to by his full name, it makes sense to use Parker in the plot. However, Ned's last name is only very briefly mentioned in the film. It is not even mentioned in the early films. There is no reason to refer to him as Leeds in the plot summary. Calling him Ned is less confusing and it makes this article consistent with other articles mentioning the character. Therefore, I am going to change it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Every other character is referred to by last name. Either be consistent, or change Parker to Peter, Octavius to Otto, etc. Buh6173 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. MJ is referred to as MJ and May is referred to as May and the other Peters are referred to as Peter-Two and Peter-Three in the plot. I don't really care if we use Parker or Peter for Spider-Man as both names make sense, but Leeds makes no sense for Ned as he is only referred to as Ned and his last name wasn't even mentioned in any of the other names, it's really more of an Easter egg then anything, just like how MJ's last name is revealed to be Watson. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Easter eggs can still provide important information and the use is still valid--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not at all the point. Leeds can absolutely be included in the article, it just does not make any sense to call him that instead of just using Ned. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a mix is appropriate depending on the context, but yes, such a heavy imbalance in favor of formality is very bizarre and it shouldn’t be that way--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

JDDJS Why are you so obsessed with this? AxGRvS (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, "Ned" is clearly the common name above "Leeds", so "Ned" should be used, as "MJ" is used instead of "Jones-Watson". —El Millo (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC

What should Ned Leeds be referred to as in the plot? Note the above conversation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ned as stated above, there's no policy reason to refer to him as Leeds. As his last name is never even used in the previous films and only briefly spoken in this film, it can be confusing using Leeds. Media refers to the character as "Ned Leeds" and just "Ned" but almost never just Leeds. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ned as the clear common name for this character throughout the films, also logically consistent with how we refer to the character MJ by her common name instead of by her last name, also only briefly spoken and rather recently revealed. —El Millo (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ned, because it’s both the common name for the character and the only name he's referred to throughout the film. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ned Common name, and he's not some authority figure or agent that would need such formality. Best you'd get is maybe an attendance call out, but he also had no scenes at school in the film so yeah, it's clear--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

No way home's indian release date is not given in release date section. It's 16 December 2021. ShadPlayz (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

including of Sandman and Lizard

so it appears the actors were not on set and were providing their voices, with footage of them being recycled footage from Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. 2600:6C5D:0:A41:31C1:50D1:6682:F5D6 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You have no source and it honestly sounds like you got rumors and havent actually seen the movie--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the footage was reused and they only did the voice but we would need a reliable source to confirm that before putting it in the article. I'm sure once the film has been out for a bit there will be news articles or interviews that will cover that. Rhino131 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Creecregolife keep your dreams in your head then I guess? I've seen the film and they're literally CGI characters with the voices from the original actors then once they're cured they "revert" back to their human forms and it's reused footage.. 2600:1004:B12C:DC6D:79CD:FD53:7357:98A2 (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I found a source it’s the IMDb page of Spider-Man No Way Home- https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10872600/movieconnections/?ref_=tt_trv_cnn Redsuperman819 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Redsuperman819 WP:CITINGIMDB. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone verify this? 2600:1005:B008:70CD:5C41:E8F2:F610:1386 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The footage is definitely archive footage. I found an Inverse article (which to my understanding is a reliable source) discussing it, so I think it can be added. JOEBRO64 19:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

awesome, @JoeBro64 2600:1004:B114:F7A7:FC4F:591A:D949:AFC4 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Osborn's Motivations

You guys seem to have omitted his motivations for being the lead Villain completely from the plot summary. He finds out what happened to himself in Spiderman (2002) from Doctor Octopus and what happened to Harry in Spiderman 3 from Sandman, then subsequently goes insane. It's an extremely important part of the plot. I can understand not going into too much detail. But there should be at least one sentence along the lines of "Octopus and Sandman inform Osborn of his own suicide and that of Harry Osborn, enraging him into wanting revenge on Spiderman" with a subnote saying "as depicted in Sam Raimi's Spiderman Trilogy". Colliric (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states that, and it'll probably be included in a Themes and analysis section. DonQuixote (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Osborn didn't turn evil. It was Green Goblin who took over because he's just naturally evil and couldn't care less about Harry or any other motivations. So, the theory wouldn't work even if some website somewhere decided to make up a motivation for him.— Starforce¹³ 23:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's what turns him insane and allows the Goblin to take completely over. So it IS his motivation. Or more accurately, as he basically stated in the film directly to Peter before telling him he didn't care he's a different Parker, it's his excuse. Colliric (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Osborn doesn't have any given motivations in the film other than his Goblin personality being evil and taking over. This is pure WP:OR. JOEBRO64 02:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the movie, this really just isn't the case. Osborn is helpful and sane, even knowing what happened to him in his universe, and continues to help working on cures until the Goblin takes back control at which point he becomes a villain again. There is no motiviation to speak from Osborns side, and his personality shift just happens, there is no specific thing called out in the movie that triggered it. Peter just notices through his spidey-sense that his Osborn suddenly became a threat. Osborn himself never shows any ill will against any of the Peters.--YannickFran (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's explicitly stated as his excuse for targeting Peter, before he also immediately smiles and states "I don't (actually) care" when Peter contends he's not the same Parker. Colliric (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

He literally says "Norman's dead, YOU KILLED HIM!". Colliric (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can cite where he explicitly says "I want revenge because" or words to that effect, then that'll be great. DonQuixote (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Daredevil

Is there a reason Charlie Cox isn’t named in the cast for his cameo appearance as Matt Murdoch? 2406:3400:314:5720:8D18:CEA1:EC11:2678 (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, just saw it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:314:5720:8D18:CEA1:EC11:2678 (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Gary Weeks

I’ve noticed that Gary Weeks reprised his role from Homecoming in this. Trying to find a source to support this, would his resume suffice? Rusted AutoParts 23:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've found no reliable sources that mention him reprising his role. His resume doesn't even list his role. —El Millo (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Aren't film credits enough? Kuhnaims (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we use secondary sources for this. We also generally consider that, if there aren't reliable secondary sources that report on it, then it must not be notable enough for inclusion. —El Millo (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

That's a post credits scene and wasn't terribly important to the plot. Not sure it should even be mentioned. Colliric (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned as it is likely setting something up for a future film.Spanneraol (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)