Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

I have recently been editing the page to expand and improve it, making corrections such as removing parts of the Infobox film template due to them not being necessary at the moment, removed the producers in the infobox due to them not being producers on every film. I corrected links to the films in various parts of the article, I added Nightwatch and Silk info while not showing it visually like we do on various other drafts (like Gamora, Groot and Rocket's appearances in the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 draft), I added categories that can be used fully once it is an article in the mainspace, I added a portal bar due to almost every other film series page has them, and I removed the Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and "Related films" sections due to them not being apart of Sony's Marvel Universe. 101blazertrail (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting an entire section without discussion is not a good way to start "improving" a draft. The reason that section exists is because those films are discussed throughout the articles, and we discuss the actual films of the universe in relation to them. Add to that the facts that Sony considers them to be set in the same in-universe continuity, reliable sources discuss them together, they are overseen by the same executive at Sony, and the very real possibility that we will soon have crossovers between them and the Sony's MU films and it makes sense to at least have a full listing in a kind of "see also" section at the bottom of the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we can keep those. But you didn't need to rollback all of my edits. You could've just readded that section. 101blazertrail (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Executives at Sony have confirmed the official title for their potential shared universe as being called "Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters" as opposed to the "Sony's Marvel Universe" brand we were given before. Since the former is the official title given by the studio behind these projects, it is to only be consistent and accurate that the page be renamed appropriately to the given title.Red Shogun412 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources that we have only tell us that "Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters" is the internal name for the universe, so the only name that Sony has actually used when publicly talking about this franchise is still "Sony's Marvel Universe". - adamstom97 (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

How much longer will this be a Draft for? It seems complete to me, or at least close to it, so I'm wondering how much longer people think it will be a Draft for. ARZ100 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We need proof that the universe exists beyond a single film. With a sole film article we generally wait until it begins filming before creating said article, so I suggest that once there are article for two films set in this universe (Venom and Morbius) we should be safe to go ahead and move the universe page to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so we have now reached that point so I think an argument can be made for this article to be moved to the mainspace. Does anyone watching this page think that we should not go ahead with the move? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem in moving this to the mainspace, considering that Morbius is filming now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I also see no problem with moving this draft to the mainspace. - Brojam (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that Morbius is filming and so the Morbius article is in the mainspace, it makes sense to move Sony's Marvel Universe to the mainspace as well. New9374 (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys. I'll go ahead and make the move, and if there are any objections from now they can contest it in the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Just seems like it's all "vague talk" to trick people into thinking that there is any MCU connection or that there is any chance whatsoever that Marvel Studios wants anything to do with this. Pascal was corrected by Feige when she vague talked too much in that interview.★Trekker (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This has been pretty comprehensively discussed already, and the answer is pretty clear: Marvel Studios is not interested in these films, but Sony wants to connect them to their Spider-Man films and hopes to have proper crossovers in the future. Therefore, we have a separate article from the MCU films that explains the wishes of the producers to connect to those films, sort of how we do for the MCU TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Where in the MCU article do you see "the wishes of the producers to connect to those films, sort of how we do for the MCU TV shows"? It looks like Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige will never have interest in connecting the two universes. Let's just keep them separate already?!?! - Cineplex (talk) 12:37 AM - March 22, 2019

You misread my statement. The part you quoted from my comment is in reference to this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this use the Infobox for a media franchise rather then for a film? ARZ100 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the change is needed just yet, as we don't have any concrete TV info. When we do then that change can probably be made. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Venom's franchise and shared universe has a draft, then I think there should be a page for the Spider-Verse. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:8D6C:665C:4BF0:81C5 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that it's been confirmed that future Spider-Man films (which are sequels to Homecoming and Far From Home) will be joining this universe, I've updated the article to reflect that Spider-Man is now going to crossover while crossovers with the MCU definitely seem off the table. I still think they should be kept in the related films table since they get discussed so much (and potentially will be retroactively included with the rest of the SMU), but other than that I think it is time to minimise discussion of the MCU so I have discontinued the controversial adjunct wording. I'm happy to discuss that and any other improvements here. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Variety source never says they are part of the SUMC. I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. Those films are exclusively MCU films and remain exclusively MCU films. According to CNBC, Sony cannot even reference those films. They are “sequels” in the sense that Holland’s and the cast are returning, not in the sense they are sequels to the MCU films and stories. I also reject to the removal of the Pascal comments, which confirmed years ago that the two franchises are separate, independent franchises. Toa Nidhiki05 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

How can they be sequels if they're not set in the MCU? Or is it the Bollywood-type of sequel (films like Housefull 2 and Aashiqui 2 which have absolutely no connect with their predecessors)? --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

They can’t even mention the other films, so the Bollywood model sounds right. It’s presumably being called a “sequel” due to having a similar cast, although a proper term might be a reboot given its in a separate universe. And to say that the MCU films are now SUMC films is patently ridiculous and unsupported. Toa Nidhiki05 13:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve re-read the Variety article and found absolutely nothing about MCU films now being SUMC films. What I did find:

Now that one of its biggest properties is back solely in its hands, Vinciquerra said that Sony plans to launch its own universe using the vast array of Spider-Man characters.

That’s two Sony execs now saying it is separate. Can we please stop pretending this in the MCU or tied to it or the MCU films? Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You are the only person saying that! Stop using it as an excuse to edit war with me! The MCU films are not part of this universe, that is literally what I said when I started this discussion. Also, the Pascal interview you keep adding was discussed and debunked at the time--she does give that quote, but then she contradicts it and goes back to her original interpretation (an interpretation shared by many reliable sources and Sony itself in the time since, as can be seen in the article). Using that one quote of hers as if she didn't immediately contradict it is misleading. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please point to my where in the Variety article I’ve not noticed. I pointed out above that the Sony exec says it is separate, like virtually every source on this subject has done. And no, Pascal didn’t “immediately contradict herself”. She said they are separate universes connected only in that they are based on Marvel characters. Everyone at Marvel has said they are separate, as has Pascal, and now as has the Sony exec mentioned in the Variety article. The SUMC has no connection to the MCU or Spider-Man: Homecoming or Spider-Man: Far From Home. Toa Nidhiki05 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The MCU films ARE NOT part of the SMU. That is what I've been saying. Why do you keep insisting that I didn't?! - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit literally says that the SUMC “includes the Spider-Man film series that began as part of Marvel Studios' shared universe the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) with Spider-Man: Homecoming in July 2017”. Toa Nidhiki05 13:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

...and it literally does not say that the MCU films are part of the SMU. My point still stands. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What’s the difference being “the SUMC includes” and “these films are part of the SUMC”? Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The difference is the SMU Spider-Man films will be in the SMU, and the MCU Spider-Man are in the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit implies otherwise. Toa Nidhiki05 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why not suggest an improvement in wording, instead of deleting it, edit warring, and accusing me of saying something that I clearly didn't intend? We're all supposed to be working together here. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I did, on the Venom page (re-adding the Pascal quote), and you reverted it. I think it needs to be clearly established what this page needs to say about the relationship with MCU. Here’s the basics:

1. The two franchises are separate and distinct (per Pascal and the Variety article)
2. Spider-Man is now a part of the SUMC, but the previous Spider-Man films are not, and Sony cannot mention their events (per Erik Davis of Fandango)
3. The MCU films are MCU films and are not adjunct or tied to the SUMC in any way.

This is widely supported by sources. There is not any real evidence of any connection at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained that the Pascal quote is problematic. The source that you are using for it does not cover the full interview. This source has further quotes from the same interview, in which Pascal says the MCU Spider-Man films are in the "same reality" as the SMU and are a "signpost" for the other SMU characters. We also already have sources in this article confirming that Sony considers their Spider-Man and Venom films to share a universe and plan to cross them over, and the latest interview says that Spider-Man will crossover with SMU characters. So we know that Spider-Man is out of the MCU and is going to join the SMU, but our reliable sources tell us that the next Spider-Man movie will be a sequel so they are not rebooting or anything. That means we need to list future Spider-Man films as part of the SMU, keep the MCU Spider-Man films separate, acknowledge that they are part of the same film series, and try to do that in a way that makes sense to casual readers. We also need to stop using that partial Pascal quote, obviously. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What this all tells me is Pascal has no idea what she is talking about, but given she does not work at Sony anymore this is not exactly reverent. Our reliable sources tell us otherwise, namely that Sony considers the MCU and SUMC separate, distinct universes, especially with the newest Variety article from the Sony exec. They are not in the same universe or continuity, as everyone at Marvel has said repeatedly and the Sony exec has now said. In order to not confuse readers, the article should make this very clear. As Erik Davis of Fandango said, the films can’t actually cross over because Sony can’t reference them - so it’s effectively not tied to them. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree, as long as we also make it clear that the next Spider-Man film is a sequel to Homecoming and Far From Home. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m okay with that as long as two things are noted: that the sequels aren’t in the MCU continuity, and the Davis comment on not being able to mention them. Other sources might exist that confirm or deny that, but that’s the most credible one I can find on the subject. The whole topic is inherently confusing, unfortunately. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My concern with that Davis comment, and the CNBC article that expands on it, is they seem to be more questions than statements. I don't know if we could use either as a strong source to state that in the articles. It may be a case of needing to wait for a better source on that one.

Since we seem to be agreeing on the general approach here, could you have a look at my changes that you reverted and tell me specifically what wording you think doesn't align with what we are deciding here, so we can look to improve that? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The specific issue is saying the SUMC includes the Spider-Man film series that started at Marvel. I’ll take you at your word when you say that you didn’t mean this to imply it is part of the MCU, but the wording implies that imo. Changing it to something like “following the end of the Sony-Marvel agreement, it includes all subsequent Spider-Man films”. Basically instead of treating it as a contraction of the MCU films, treating it as a sequel (for lack of a better word) in a different universe. The confusing situation makes this very, very difficult to word accurately imo. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I was hoping you would be a bit more specific than that so we could actually address all the changes. So, here is a list of what you reverted and where I believe we are at:

• At Venom (2018 film) you deleted an explanatory note that I believe is needed for casual readers who will likely find it confusing that we are saying Venom is the first film in the universe. The note explains that Homecoming doesn't count because it is part of the MCU instead. If you don't think it comes across that way, can you provide a version of the note that does?
• Also at Venom, you re-added the extra bit from Pascal. I think I've already made my case quite strongly for why I still think this needs to be removed.
• Here, your version of the lead contains extensive discussion of the MCU films that I believe does not reflect the scope of this article. So, could you please identify specific parts in my version of the lead that you disagree with so we can get them updated but keep the weighting more accurate to the body?
• In the development section, you have deleted a big chunk of text from the latest interview explaining what the future of Spider-Man and the universe is. No reasoning for this has been given. You have also re-added the bad Pascal stuff, and reverted a general c/e and format update to improve readability and flow.
• Throughout the rest of the article you have reverted general c/e updates, a new version of the Far From Home sequel section that actually reflects the standalone article for that film, the removal of unsourced fancrufty stuff from the cast section as well as ordering it chronologically, and you have chosen the worse version for the references, which I had filled out and cleaned up. No reasoning has been given for any of this either.

If you could go through these changes and make more specific proposals for how to move forward then I think that would be a big help in wrapping this up. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Adam, I indeed want the film to be a proper sequel, meaning a continuation, just like you and any other Marvel fan. But how can it be one if SMU and MCU are different universes? Is multiverse the answer? I'll agree with whatever you say, just it should sound rational. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The "rational" answer is that in the WP:REALWORLD, Sony is making a sequel to their film Far From Home and the only change is that Marvel Studios is no longer working with them on the series, so they can't bring characters in from Marvel's films anymore. That doesn't change the fact that they are making a sequel, and we shouldn't let in-universe canonical issues get in the way of us saying what is actually happening. I know it may seem confusing, but our best option is to literally just lay out the facts and let the reader interpret them instead of trying to manufacture anything.

Since it's been almost a week and I have not got a reply, I am going to be bold and restore the parts of my edits that I believe are not controversial per the discussion above. I will keep out the note at Venom and similar wording here that I think is the actual contentious content and hopefully we can continue the discussion on that stuff soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This complicates things here, to say the least. Toa Nidhiki05 15:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we've handled it fine in the article as of now. Everything is back to the way it was, except Feige has acknowledged that there will be some sort of back-and-forth with the character. We can add more here when we learn more about what that will be. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks good generally. I did add the new info from the Deadline piece: namely, that the initial offer was 25/75 and gradually increased to 50/50, with the final deal being the original 25/75 agreement. Toa Nidhiki05 21:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't each of the films that feature Peter Parker / Spider-Man from the MCU be listed here? Canonically, this includes: Iron Man 2, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. Shouldn't they be listed as well?....or rather, why aren't they?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Those may be "canonically" related, but they aren't actually related. The ones that are here at the moment are all Sony productions that are discussed throughout the article, including how these films are intended to connect with them at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, I get what you're saying but technically wouldn't they be tied to the above stated films as well? Especially given the fact that Tom Holland plays Spider-Man in the MCU films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to focus on the WP:REALWORLD, production aspects here. Those films are being made by different people who have no intention of working in with this universe, and they are also not discussed throughout this article which is the main reason why a list of the related films is included. I know there are canonical connections here, but that isn't always enough for Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Long time since I've looked at this article, so I'm revisiting this - @Adamstom.97: I can understand WP:REALWORLD situation reasonings, however especially given that Tom Holland's Spider-Man is the "centerpiece" of these two cinematic universes, and the fact that he is a main character in those other films - shouldn't they be listed here as well? Especially now, with the contract re-negotiations and the fact that Michael Keaton's Vulture is in the new Morbius trailer (i.e.: These Sony movies are their own corner of the MCU). Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither Sony or Marvel have said he’s the Vulture, and even if he is it could well be a different Vulture than in the MCU. Marvel, on their end, has been entirely clear that these films are not in their universe. Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay guys, let's talk about this. The new trailer for Morbius had a couple of ties to the MCU. The most "obvious" one was Michael Keaton reprising his role as Adrian Toomes/Vulture at the end. I have added his inclusion several times to the article, only for some editors to revert. I {{WP:BOLD|WP:BOLD]]ly re-added the character to the cast table, and I am now bringing this here. Deadline has corroborated this obvious reveal, and state that Keaton reprises his role. Given the source, this needs to be added and really can't be disputed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely can be disputed. Marvel has said these films aren’t in their universe and neither Sony nor Marvel have confirmed the casting of Keaton as Vulture - and even if they did, it doesn’t matter since the SUMC is not canon. It would effectively be a different Vulture. Multiple people have taken issue with your edits here - maybe it’s not them that’s the problem? Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should be included, but we just need to be sure that we are stating the facts and not making assumptions about these films and the MCU. Just because Sony can include references to their own Spider-Man films in these other ones doesn't mean Marvel considers these to be MCU canon. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Here’s one way to look at it: Sony has complete control over Spider-Man characters and can use them as they wish. That means they could, in theory, have the Vulture in this movie. However, while this character would be played by the same actor, it’s not MCU canon and it’s not him reprising his role. It’s more akin to Brandon Routh playing Superman in Superman Returns as well as in Crisis on Infinite Earths. Of course, we have no confirmation from Sony or Marvel as to who he is playing, so the side of caution must be erred on. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added the Deadline source as well as the official trailer drop IGN source (that comes with an interview with Leto and confirms Keaton as Vulture). Just because he is reprising the role (as in he is playing Vulture again) doesn't mean Morbius is MCU canon though. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone reference to a reliable source where Sony's movies are actually called this, or is it a fan term? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think it originated in a reliable source at one point, but I'm actually not sure if it's official. According to Variety, "Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters" is the official internal name for the universe (I'm not joking). JOEBRO64 02:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sony's Marvel Universe" is the name that Sony used when they announced Venom back in 2017, and they haven't publicly used any other name since then. "Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters" is apparently what they have been using internally, so we include that as well, but until they use that publicly or give us a new public name for the franchise I think we should stick with the name that they have announced. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If they are internally using SUMC, we should probably use that given it’s the closest to an official name. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

By what logic? How is the name that they reportedly use internally more official than the name they definitely used in an announcement. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sony's Marvel Unviverse. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Further more, I have several times tried to cleanup the article. The "Films in development" section is currently pretty messy. Each movie has a jumble of information, with dates of each development listed at the end of the sentence (almost as an afterthought). This is poor sentence structure. As these are projects that are in various stages of development - the sentences should state the date, that the update occurred in, prior to listing the details.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, these topics will need to have various input from the editors who have been involved with editing this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Putting the dates at the end of the sentence does not make them "messy". In fact, if every sentence started with a date then we would be falling into WP:DATELIST rather than prose discussion which is why I and other editors I know often go out of our way to put the dates in different places or use alternative wording. If you have any sentences in particular that you think need to be reworded then perhaps suggest some specific examples here and we could discuss those. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I am not stating that the entire bullet-pointed paragraph needs to list dates. What I'm suggesting is that by listing the date at the end of the sentence, it reads as Yoda-isms and it really could use some restructuring. The sentences I am referring to were, the ones that I edited previously.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating that it "could use some restructuring" does not change the fact that it is perfectly fine in terms of logic, grammar, and sentence flow, and in fact not starting every sentence with a date is preferable. Again, if you have any sentences in particular that you think need to be reworded then perhaps suggest some specific examples here and we could discuss those. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I have also edited the films in development section to clarify which incarnation of each character the project will be centered around. This is key, as there are various characters within the comics that assume an identity. By what basis, are we not listing which character we are referring to?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, these topics will need to have various input from the editors who have been involved with editing this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a topic that has been explained to you numerous times. Just because that name is used in the comics does not mean it will apply to the film, so you need a reliable source stating that it will also be used in the film before you can add it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: what I stated, is that each article that announces these films has clarified which incarnation of the character/alias is being adapted. Clarifying which incarnation of the character is good form, m8.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a topic that has been explained to you numerous times. Just because that name is used in the comics does not mean it will apply to the film, so you need a reliable source stating that it will also be used in the film before you can add it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This universe now has an official name, and that is the Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters. This name (or a variant) has actually been known for years, but some editors have insisted it is unofficial. Clearly now, however, the name is official and this article should reflect that. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is enough to move the article and add the name to the title, but I also think it suggests another major change. The source clearly shows that the "Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters" refers to these films but also the MCU Spider-Man films and the animated Spider-Verse movies. If we are going to update the title then I think we need to adjust the scope of the article to reflect that Sony considers all of these films together. We actually aren't far off doing that now, there would just need to be some tweaking such as moving the "Related films" up to the other films. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there is enough there to make any such change but this does seem to be enough to make the move so I will go ahead and be bold with this. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: with Sony Pictures considering all the movies as one film franchise the question is, why wouldn't we group all the movies together? The fact that they're developed by different film studios can be discussed in prose.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I just feel that we need a bit more clarification from them regarding which films are classified under which names before we go re-arranging anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's some commentary: io9, Collider, CinemaBlend. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Added - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How come the proposed movie adaptaions of Solo and Man-Wolf aren't on here? Also, what does everyone think of the ridicolous new name for this universe? I thought "Sony's Marvel Universe" or "Sony's Universe of Marvel Universe" had a better ring to it! - Cineplex (talk) 9:11PM - May 1, 2020

Per WP:NOTFORUM this is not the place to discuss your personal feelings about the name. As for those other films, do you have a reliable source to support their inclusion? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cineplex: the name is what it is. @Adamstom.97: the source for these movies is The Illuminerdi who have also announced the Spider-Woman movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Illuminerdi isn’t reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 03:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only is the source not reliable, it also explicitly states that this is an uncomfirmed rumour, so it is doubly unreliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: states that the film table's film listings should be links to other areas within the article. This is the first I have ever seen of such a formatting. Every other article I have seen, that includes a film table, has direct links to the respective films' article. I want to hear thoughts/reasonings regarding this decision.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, these topics will need to have various input from the editors who have been involved with editing this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Other articles doing something does not necessarily mean that we should do it to (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The film overview table is an overview of our film list section here, and when someone looks at the table we want them to be getting a sense of the subsection to follow. Sending them straight to another article doesn't make sense in that context, especially when we could send them to the subsection that they were just reading the summary of and give them the option to click on the main article link if they so choose. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I understand, but my statement was not meant to imply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What I mean was that, I have never seen this on any other article. It sounds like you're going for a 'table of contents' approach, which really is what the Contents pane at the top of the page is for. Can we get other insight into this from other editors too? Maybe there are other articles like this that are similar, which I am not aware of.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on DC Extended Universe and Phases One, Two, Three, and Four of the MCU, which are the most similar to this one, we should link directly to the articles. Now, perhaps adamstom97 thinks those articles are incorrect, in which case we can discuss if we change our approach. El Millo (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you guys are saying we should do it because it is done in other articles is the definition of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You generally need to have another reason for why it is done in those articles and should be repeated here. I have explained why I believe it makes more sense to do it this way, can you explain why your way is better? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I'm not stating that purely because it is like that in other articles it should be that way here, but the fact that it is like that and hasn't been changed –not even by you– looks like an implicit consensus to do it that way. It's important to look at how things are done on other similar articles, and it seems like there's a precedence to link directly to the article instead of the section. Now, as I said above, we should discuss which option is better and then make the change to all these articles. @Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, and Trailblazer101: you're invited to participate.

You keep saying that you have reasoning other than because it is done at other articles and yet you also keep refusing to explain what that is. I am trying to discuss which way is better with you and have explained why I think my approach is the best, so why can't you just say why your way is the best? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: It's not my way, I just disagree with citing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to invalidate the existence of multiple examples. Now, in regards to which is the best option, linking to the sections is a bit redundant given that we already have a ToC and it is more comfortable to have all the articles linked together in a table. In this case specifically, given the few movies that currently comprise this franchise, it's the same one way or the other, usefulness-wise. The table and the subsections are so close together and brief that even without scrolling they can all be seen. For consistency sake, I would prefer to link to the article, but I'm somewhat neutral. That's precisely why I pinged three other users to state their opinion on the matter. El Millo (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: My reasoning would be that because there is a Table of Contents, which acts as direct jump-links to the different sections, a film table's cell links should link directly to the information in its cell. An example of this would be: the director's name in the table cell links directly to their article. Not to another area on the article that has the director's name. I agree with @Facu-el Millo: that once this article is larger, it'll be more of an issue than it is now. I was simply wanting to discuss it, as apparently there is more than one way to do it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been several edits that I have done on this article that have been reverted. One of those includes the fact that The Illuminerdi - a source that is cited/referenced in other articles (and has been proven to be reliable) - states that there is a Spider-Woman film in development by Sony. By what definition, is The Illuminerdi not reliable?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, these topics will need to have various input from the editors who have been involved with editing this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Illuminerdi was the only reliable source there, and its whole article is based on something "reported earlier by MCU Cosmic", which isn't reliable. That's in the first line of the article, which I assume you've read. If you clarified here that The Illuminerdi is a reliable source, it seems you're already aware that every other source you cited there isn't reliable, including MCU Cosmic. Does this mean that you knowingly added sources that weren't reliable? Because that would constitute vandalism in my eyes. This is far from the first time you've done this, by the way. El Millo (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead and Facu-el Millo: The Illuminerdi is NOT a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Then it's even worse. El Millo (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I'm not going to get into it with you, but do not put words into my mouth. Users: Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97 - please clarify, why are we considering The Illuminerdi to be unreliable, especially if it is an 'exclusive' article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to find an explanation for what you did and do. It seems you were well aware already that all the other sources weren't reliable. You've been reverted a bunch of times for edits like these. Either you're doing it in spite of knowing that it's wrong, or you have a really bad memory. El Millo (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: We do not need a reason to consider a source unreliable, we need a reason to consider it reliable, especially when it is called "The Illuminerdi". I have seen no proof that we can trust this source, and the fact that it uses the word "Exclusive" sometimes has no bearing on that. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm honestly starting to wonder if DMH should be topic-banned from these types of articles, given that he seems to acknowledge the sources he cited are unreliable and he's just ignoring protocol. JOEBRO64 21:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: I am not going to get involved with you, (do not twist my words) but I have not stated that any source I included is "unreliable". What I said was that The Illuminerdi (the cite I sourced) is reliable. @Adamstom.97: the source should have a reason to be unreliable. The source has released information regarding Marvel movies and/or Disney movies in the past that was proven to be accurate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's the other way round. A source is unreliable until proven reliable. Otherwise, by your definition, a random site publishing unproven and undebunked false rumors would automatically be treated as reliable. Having occasionally published rumors that turned out to be true doesn't automatically make you a reliable source. You need a solid reputation of consistently publishing accurate stories. Also, the fact that the article in question literally cites unreliable rumor sites like mcucosmic should be a red flag. — Starforce¹³ 07:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Any site can publish an "exclusive", but that doesn't automatically mean we then get to use it or can consider it reliable. Per what basically everyone else has said, we have to prove a site as reliable. Given The Illuminerdi does not have an "About" page or appear to have any editorial oversight, I would call that the first of many red flags. @TheJoebro64: I've had similar feelings in the past regarding DMH's actions (here included) and do wonder if there is enough to form a topic ban case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that the cast and characters table in this article should match others of its kind, example: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors or List of DC Extended Universe cast members SecondLooneyaccount (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It already does... Doesn't it? What do you see different? —El Millo (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, it looks similar yes, but it’s completely different. For example, this is this articles table format: {|class="wikitable nowraplinks" style="text-align:center; width:99%;"

And this is the MCU’s table format: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:99%;"

Plus “introduced in” sections in this article are totally different from the other articles. SecondLooneyaccount (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought you meant it looked different, not the code. Well, the difference in the Introduced in... is that the ones on this article aren't sections. This difference is because this table is part of a larger article on the shared universe as a whole, whereas List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors and List of DC Extended Universe cast members are articles dedicated entirely to cast tables. Plus, this list is small enough that splitting it into three subsections is unnecessary. The format could be changed, I'll try it and see if it brings any complications. —El Millo (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed the header, basically no change visually. —El Millo (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to claim that Spider-Verse and MCU films are connected to SPUMC. Besides the casual inclusion of Spider-Verse and Spider-Man: Homecoming in that presentation which happened to casually mention SPUMC... a name that Sony has almost never used in public, there are no real reliable sources confirming the connection. Sony uses these things as just marketing tactics. I mean, they also run the spider-man twitter account which called them "Spider-Man Universe of Characters" and included all the unconnected variations of Spider-Man. So, I don't believe they're necessary using the word "universe" to imply a shared / connected universe. It's more of just the Marvel IP. We shouldn't change what the definition of a "shared universe" is to service Sony's marketing tactics and use them as facts. — Starforce¹³ 23:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What about the current article's wording do you find misleading, specifically? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Starforce here. Any claims of a tie with the MCU are unfounded, especially given the repeated denials by both Marvel and Sony of such a thing. Marvel is in complete control over what is canon in the MCU - not Sony. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, what about the current article's wording do you feel claims a tie with the MCU that is misleading, specifically? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The claim that the MCU films are "related films", which is bollocks. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

How? Per the third Marvel Studios film agreement, there is explicit mention that there will be some sort of connection between the SPUMC and the MCU. What, remains to be seen, but there is definitely sourced content to support there are connections between the two to warrant the mentions we do here at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

They are also very much related in a real world sense since they are all Sony productions. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion carries over to what I stated below. There are real-world connections between the SSU and Sony-produced MCU films. What further needs to be discussed is how/when Spider-Man appearances within the MCU should be detailed here (whether in film table or pros). Since the above discussion^, Feige has stated that Tom Holland's Spider-Man will be able to feature in both the MCU and the SSU; Tom Holland showed up in Venom 2, while Tom Hardy's Venom got moved to the MCU; Michael Keaton is confirmed to be reprising his role as Vulture in Morbius; and various villains from previous Sony Spider-Man movies are going to feature in No Way Home. Additionally, Pascal stated that each universe of Spider-Man characters/continuities is being seen as a multiverse scenario. I will ping editors to the continued discussion below.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to expand this section and more accurately depict its topic several times, while a particular editor (namely @InfiniteNexus:) continues to revert this section. The 'Related films' section has been on this article since its origin/conception (if my memory is correct). My first question/argument was and still is -- why don't we list each movie that Tom Holland's Spider-Man appears in the MCU, within this section? If the argument is that we don't list them in the table at least in pros format would more adequately detail where and when Holland's appearances as Spidey are. Furthermore, the MCU also has television series centered around the same MCU Spider-Man. With these series now also "RELATED TO" the SSU, my argument is to re-title this section "Related media" (or some other variation) and include subsections of the mediums by which the installment is released (i.e.: In film, In television, and so forth). The inclusion of the Spider-Man Trilogy, The Amazing Spider-Man film series, and the Spider-Verse film series would also more adequately expand and explain this section - seeing as producer Pascal has described the studios' plans moving forward as a multiverse scenario. With characters from previous films showing up in No Way Home, and Tom Holland's Spider-Man being SSU canon/connective tissue -- shouldn't these films also remain in the table as they have been? The argument for each of these could be made that having details in pros format is detailed enough with perhaps only including main Spider-Man films/tv series titles in the tables. My argument is still that this page needs more detailed coverage of the SSU's various connections to the MCU, the previous Spider-Man films, the Spider-Verse movies, and the Spider-Man MCU tv series appearances. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, the MCU is not connected to the SSU. The prose in the related media section describing its relationship with the MCU (i.e. their deal with Marvel) is fine; a gigantic table listing all the films and TV shows is just excessive. Right now, the only film that is arguably somewhat "connected" to the SSU is No Way Home, everything else is pure speculation. And don't get me started on the Spider-Verse or the Tobey/Andrew films, which have zero relation to the SSU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There is 'relation'/connection to the MCU, so far as Tom Holland's Spider-Man is concerned. Amy Pascal and Kevin Feige have both confirmed this. There is also real-world application between the film studios: Sony and Marvel. Additionally, Sony lists the 3 Spider-Man films as a part of their SSU. Some of these facts can be viewed here, here, here, here, and here. Where are your sources that they are not related?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

When I say they are not connected, I mean story-wise. The Sony/Marvel deal is already detailed at § Marvel Cinematic Universe connections. None of the sources that you cited suggest that the three MCU Spider-Man films are part of the SSU, save for the first one, which discusses how No Way Home will kickstart an SSU multiverse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of questions, and apparent differences/reasonings as to what should and shouldn't be listed on this article. As I explained above, I would argue that a detailed explanation for what IS and ISN'T connected to the Sony Spider-Man Universe would be beneficial to: the average reader. Seeing as there are a number of concerns, I have broken up the issues/debates below.

• Topic 1: As stated above, there is a question as to when we include Tom Holland/MCU Spider-Man content on this article. What determines including the media here, versus when we don't?
• Topic 2: As stated above, if we include Tom Holland/MCU Spider-Man continuity content in the 'related' sections; why would we not include the MCU television series that also include Spider-Man? Wouldn't this only further establish that MCU Spider-Man is the same in both media franchise universes?
• Topic 3: As stated above, if we include Tom Holland/MCU Spider-Man - why wouldn't we include Spider-Man Trilogy and The Amazing Spider-Man film series details as well (seeing as No Way Home features returning actors and characters and is centered around a multiverse)?
• Topic 4: Seeing as the SSU is a part of a cinematic multiverse, and has been detailed as such by producers and creatives involved, why wouldn't we include the Spider-Verse film series to some degree as well?

Please explain your reasoning for either angle/view-point regarding this topic.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging earlier contributing editors, who have also discussed these topics. Users: @Starforce13:, @Adamstom.97:, @Toa Nidhiki05:, and @Favre1fan93:. Additionally, other editors who have contributed to the SSU article within the last month, users: @ActivelyDisinterested:, @Mitchy Power:, @YgorD3:, @WuTang94:, @Facu-el Millo:, and @Maxbmogs:.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is most of the connections you're proposing still don't exist. Venom: LTBC connected the SSU with the MCU in its post-credits scene. Now Way Home connected the MCU with the Raimi Spider-Man films and the Amazing Spider-Man films in its marketing campaign. But the connection between the SSU and these two Spider-Man film series doesn't exist, at least not directly, so it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it. Now, your latest additions, i.e. What If...? and Marvel Zombies are even less justified. Just because Spider-Man is in one of them and potentially in the other one doesn't mean that it has a notable connection to the SSU. Including the Spider-Verse animated films here has no justification either, as there's virtually no connection whatsoever, and the reference cited makes no connection between these two universes othen than being both produced by Sony. Right now, the only films whose inclusion in a "Related films" table is justified are the MCU Spider-Man films featuring Tom Holland, i.e. the Homecoming trilogy. The connections to this trilogy of films have been made quite explicit, with Vulture appearing in the Morbius trailer after being the main villain in Homecoming and Holland appearing in the Venom: LTBC post-credits scene. All the other media included has no meaningful connection to the SSU, other than being connected to the MCU. Now, it's likely they'll become meaningfully connected at some point in the future, possibly as soon as No Way Home comes out we'll know. If, for instance, Venom were to appear along Doc Ock and Electro, that would be a meaningful connection worth noting, and then the inclusion of the Raimi and Webb films would be more justified, but right now we've got little to nothing. —El Millo (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We should only include what is actually confirmed and known right now. Pascal has made comments about how No Way Home is tied to Venom, so we should include that information. There is no direct confirmation that any other Spider-Man films are connected or related to the MCU. Finally, I'm not sure why you think that just because No Way Home features, say, Alfred Molina, that it means the SSU is "related" to Spider-Man 2. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I'd get rid of the section entirely. There's no need to have a list of movies - prose explaining what little we know about the connection more than suffices. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sony Universe of Marvel Characters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Sony Universe of Marvel Characters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The article's claims regarding co-production are extremely dubious. No other news outlet has corroborated these claims at any point, and contemporaneous reports of the Madame Webb casting announcements make no mention of Marvel Studios. It has been months since these supposed "announcements" with no corroboration from any actual media outlet. We really need to reconsider including these dubious claims. Toa Nidhiki05 18:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Production Weekly has proven to be very accurate in the content of their listings, and as the editor who paid for a US$75 monthly subscription to download the listings (which can be found in download files at my talk for verification on your ends) and added this information with strong evaluation, I understand why some find it to be "dubious" given it has not been reported on by other outlets. My rationale for this, as I have explained at User talk:Trailblazer101#Production Weekly and Draft talk:Untitled Venom: Let There Be Carnage sequel#Marvel Studios, Production Weekly's listings list Marvel Studios in the field for production studios (they provide an example of their listing format here), which includes the studio's headquarters and contact information specifically for Madame Web, El Muerto, Venom 3, Silk, and two unspecified films scheduled for June and October 2023. This info has been continually updated with new up-to-date information, with the listings for MW, Silk, and the two 2023 films also listing Kevin Feige as a producer, while the listings also list several other producers of the projects and filming locations and filming times, with the MW filming info from PW of a July 11 start in Boston recently being proven correct with filming details revealed (that have been added to Draft:Madame Web (film)). These do not appear to be any typos or mistakes in my view, as for the listings of Kraven the Hunter, PW lists Marvel Entertainment and its location and contact info with the production studios. Since the Disney-Sony deal was renegotiated, it was only a matter of time before they would both co-produce films. MW star Dakota Johnson had also linked to Feige on social media about her MW role, and sites picked up on that teasing his involvement. Some sites have reported on filming info from PW before, like for Echo (TV series), so I'm not sure why the Marvel Studios and other producers have not been reported on. I do stand by my contributions of this information, and these are not just any "dubious claims", they are information in an official listing which, per their jobs page, hires research editor[s] to update film production information. Prior entertainment experience is preferred. Duties include research, phone calls, light data entry, interacting with below the line individuals and establishing/maintaining contacts. Research production office contact information and use targeted reports of upcoming pre-production projects. Confirm and update pre-production projects and verify additional information via phone and email. They state in their about page that Production Weekly provides professionals working in the film and television industries with the most comprehensive production breakdown available. Our professional research staff continuously tracks and compiles up-to-date data on projects in various stages of development, both domestically and internationally. and state on their submissions to the Film Production Charts, and Please remember, we are a service to the film industry and as such we need your help in keeping the charts up-to-date and accurate. Films that have inaccurate information listed, or show no movement or updates within 90 days will be removed from the charts.. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot of text justifying why no outlet has reported on this if it's accurate. Do you surely not think Deadline or Variety would have noticed by now? Production Weekly is known for not being entirely accurate with listings. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I was explaining how Production Weekly is reliable and accurate. Just because other trades haven't reported on it does not mean Production Weekly is inherently wrong in any way. Unless there is any report that debunks the accuracy of Production Weekly's listings for these projects, beyond just other editors personal doubts, this material should be allowed to stay. There is enough information from Production Weekly to be verified in their accuracy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The latest Production Weekly listing here has updated its Madame Web info to replace Marvel Studios with Marvel Entertainment and all its info, and removed Feige from the producers list, but kept the other producers and filming details in tact, and added Roberts. It seems most likely that they got word of the info getting out there (given some unreliable sites made articles on Feige's involvement via the listing on June 23 thanks to a YouTube video on this), or listed something they shouldn't have, and moved to remove it, or were told to remove it. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Marvel Studios and Feige's involvement was in the prior listings, and that should be noted. I also noted on the info getting out there at Draft talk:Madame Web (film), where more hints at the involvement is being discussed for that film. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe the information was just incorrect, per Occam's razor. Confusing Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment is a fairly easy mistake to make. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Production Weekly is a reliable source and I see no reason to doubt what Trailblazer says is accurate. JOEBRO64 06:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC

Can anyone put kraven the hunter from filming to post production because the movie has wrapped production 2001:16A2:C1C2:5E14:F009:FFE2:6F96:43C9 (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Liliana ^(UwU) 00:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A listing of all current draft articles for upcoming future Sony Marvel films can be found at Talk:Sony's Marvel Universe/Drafts. Thank you. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In the "cast and character" section shouldn't J.K. Simmons be credited as J. Jonah Jameson under the Daily Bugles column? Snuffles513 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Bugle column refers to the third season/Morbius campaign. JJJ does not appear in that campaign. — SirDot (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have brought this up before (in my edit comments), and as-is this still doesn't make sense to me. The article currently has director, screenwriter, and producer credits. As credited by the WGAW, there are also story-writing credits for each of these films. They are clearly notable as they are credited in the movies, but some editors refuse to include such a column. What is the reasoning that this table is edited to remove these credits?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no comments opposing this, I am going to go ahead and add the credits for writers that authored the story to each film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. No immediate comments do not mean there is an agreement to implement your proposed changes. Story writer credits are not typically used in the main credits by major outlets, and it adds excessive details to the table that can easily be covered for those who do want it to find it at the article in the infoboxes. This has been explained to you many times before by myself and other editors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Every role is credited in the movies, all the heads of each field within the production on a film are notable, the editor, the cinematographer, the VFX supervisor, the composer, etc. That doesn't mean we should include them everywhere. Director, producer, and screenwriter are generally considered the most relevant three. So the fact that the story-writing credit is credited in the movies isn't enough to justify adding it to a table about a whole franchise of films. Every other relevant role not included here is already at each film's respective article. —El Millo (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: actually, that can be how it works. If no one opposes a change within the month's time that I had proposed the change -- I made the edits per WP:BOLD. Additionally "This has been explained to you many times before by myself and other editors"... where do you get this from? Story writing credits are indeed notable, as they are listed on the billing block of the film poster, and are detailed in the credits right near/with the credited screenwriter. @Facu-el Millo: typically those additional production credits are listed in another table. I was referring to those who are credited in the billing block, and by the WGAW.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You were reverted on this in the past and it was explained to you on this in the past in the edit summaries from other editors, which would be an implicit consensus to not use it. Story credits are not commonly used across these tables. I am not discounting their notability. Editors can find them at the respective film articles where applicable. Not every film has a story credit, though every film has a screenwriting/writer credit, which should remain in place here. An article is not to be changed to satisfy the desired version of one editor. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article is about the shared universe. We only list in that table what are generally considered to be the main "authors" or contributors to the films, being those the directors and writers, in these tables where we list all the films. Having those additional production credits listed in another table serve no purpose for this article, which is about the franchise and about information relevant for the franchise, not just a collection of details about every individual film. We list very generally what each film is about, its director, writer, when it was released. We then include information that is relevant particularly in relation to the franchise as a whole, such as the critical reception and box office, the developments of the production side of the franchise, connections to other media, etc. There's no need to list all creative heads in this article, as all that information is already included and talked about in more detail at each film's respective article. Lastly, when Trailblazer said That's not how this works, he was referring to you considering no comments opposing this as an implicit support for it, which it is not. It is still would've been correct to make a WP:BOLD edit, but that's what it would be, a BOLD edit, not an edit with consensus. —El Millo (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: it sounds like you are the one who is pushing to "satisfy the desired version of [some] editor[s]" (to use your own language). There are numerous articles about film franchises which include story writing credits in their film tables. The reason that they are noteworthy, is the reason that they should be included on the film table. It's as simple as that. You state that there are other editors who have "explained to [me] this in the past" but that is subjective. As I have stated there are countless franchise articles that use the story writing credits. It seems to me that you are merely trying to mirror the MCU article, currently. I completely disagree that story credits shouldn't be included. When a film gives "written by" as the sole credit that generally means that the WGAG gives sole credit to writing abilities to that one writer. When they split the credits between "Story by" and "Screenplay by" credits -- it's that one group of writers wrote the overall story (framework) while the other writers wrote the script (and contributed enough to be given credit). Ignoring the story credits, is ignoring a very significant contribution to the film. @Facu-el Millo: I wasn't inferring that no comments meant that it was a consensus. My statement was that no one had responded/there were no oppositions, and so I WP:BOLDly made the change. I would additionally respond to your previous statements the same way. While this article is about a "Shared universe" as you pointed out -- what makes up this "shared universe"? It's a franchise. A franchise of movies and upcoming TV series. The associated production details/studios/creatives involved, are all absolutely notable.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean pertinent. When talking about Sony's Spider-Man Universe, it doesn't matter who was the cinematographer for Morbius, it doesn't add anything of value to this article. It's pertinent to the article Morbius (film). I won't argue particularly for or against including the "Story by" credit in the table, I'll argue generally against including creatives from the individual films in franchise articles just because they are relevant to each individual film, because they are not relevant to the franchise as a whole, so it becomes WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the context of this article. I understand your argument that "Story by" is basically part of a "Written by" split between story and screenplay, so that's why I wouldn't be particularly against this instance, while it is still clear to me that, when choosing between either "Story by" or "Screenplay by", the later takes precedence. —El Millo (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I am coming back to this thread once again. While each detail about the filmmaking processes needn't be in this table, it is commonplace enough to have each of the writing credits provided by the WGA. As there isn't any opposition to the story by credits, I would still argue that this article should reflect as much.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"it is commonplace enough to have each of the writing credits" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because you say it is done elsewhere does not mean we have to do it here. And where are you seeing this? I am definitely in opposition to you continually ignoring my opposition and opposition from others such as Adamstom in the past. We have already explained to you why these changes you persist in making are not being done in this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point out how odd it is to include a photograph of Tom Hardy, and not any other photos. To have the star of the first movie is unusual. A better option may be to include images of the filmmakers that are linked to these projects. Otherwise, explain to me (and the average reader) why Tom Hardy's photograph is here to stay.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hardy is also a writer and producer of the Venom films, opposed to the different directors, writers, producers, etc. That's why it is included and no other images are... Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

...but why is only his photo on this article? Where are the other writers/producers? That still doesn't make sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead Yet again you have removed this image against the consensus, and as such, I have issued you a warning. I and other editors have explained the purpose of the image in edit summaries and in past edits and discussions elsewhere. Just because it "doesn't make sense" to you is not a justifiable excuse to be disruptive and continually remove it while wholly knowing it is a contested edit. I strongly urge you to cease your removal of this image. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: the logic of including just one of the actors (who just so happens to be a writer/producer) still doesn't make any sense. I have expressed this and had no response since June of 2023 which is why I removed the image again. You stated that you and other editors gave valid reasons for the image, but if you're going to include an actor who is a writer/producer... where are the other actors/producers/writers? By what means does is it a requirement for an image to be on the article? Additionally where are those "other discussions" that you're talking about^?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The lack of a response does not give you justification to make a contested edit again (rather, a ping asking for a response would be more constructive), which you know has been contested for a while now. As I already explained, the fact that Hardy is also a writer and producer is notable as he is a recurring creative in the Venom films part of this franchise. One image in an otherwise imageless article is more helpful to readers than no images at all. There are multiple actors, writers, and producers, yes, though none who share all three roles and are as deeply involved in their franchise in this universe than Hardy, who was the first leading actor cast in the franchise and is therefore more notable and relevant than any other random actor, director, etc. How does that not "make any sense"? By "other discussions", I was referring to your continued past attempts to fixate this article in your own preferred version and making excuses to justify such repeated and contested edits, such as it "still doesn't make sense". Editors, including explained, this to you multiple times in edit summaries in which we reverted your removal. You can return to those through the page's editing history. You claim on your talk to "not intentionally being 'disruptive'", yet your repeated removal of this image and other preference changes despite multiple editors beyond just myself reverting and warning you for them in the past lends credence to doubt that and question what your intentions are then. You're lucky I haven't reported you for this editing behavior yet out of WP:Assuming good faith, though this has become quite disruptive in its repetitive nature after several months of on-and-off removals and changes against consensus for how this article's formatting and images are and without adequately explaining what your concerns are with the established article or how and why your changes would benefit it, and without further engaging in discussions once they've gone stale. It is not okay to be bold to restore your contested edits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments all sound like your own personal preference. The solution to this would be several things that I have stated various times as well: Include images of the starring actors in each section (i.e.: Tom Hardy, Jared Leto, Dakota Johnson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, etc.) or to include the filmmaker of each film instead (i.e.: Ruben Fleischer, Andy Serkis, Daniel Espinosa, S.J. Clarkson, J.C. Chandor, Kelly Mercel, etc.). I have also stated at various times why this would be a constructive enhancement of the article for every reader. There were no contested statements on my comment since June 2023... so I WP:BOLDly made an adjustment to the article, until a decision was made. My opinion that it "still doesn't make sense" is indeed meant to be constructive for the article. Thank you for assuming WP:GOODFAITH because, that is all that this is. My suggestion would be to have an open discussion with the various editors who have regularly contributed to this article, though it is worth pointing out seems that you regularly adjust the article to some of your preferences. Only looking to make the article consistent and more complete. That is all. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

How is this their own personal preference? Trailblazer clearly stated that Hardy is the most involved and recurring in the franchise out of all the directors and other actors, as star of three films (counting the upcoming Venom 3) and a producer in two of them. You could still not consider it "enough" to warrant him being the only picture included, but it's clearly and objective measure of relevance to the franchise as a whole. To include a picture of the director of every film would be excessive and unnecessary, plus inappropriate for an article about a franchise, where relevant people are often those that are repeatedly involved, not just once. —El Millo (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)