Jump to content

Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Feige interview, May 12

"Spider-Man: Homecoming 2, which wouldn’t be the title, but that’s what we call it because that’s the agreement we made with Sony for the inclusion of Spidey in the Avengers films" - as told by Feige to Collider. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you trying to have added or discussed about this? We know it is a temporary title, even without Feige stating it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
At first I thought he meant that due to an agreement with Sony, the title would not be revealed soon, just like how Spidey was not revealed in Civil War until a few months before its release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe the part "that’s the agreement we made with Sony for the inclusion of Spidey in the Avengers films" is referring to making a sequel to Homecoming. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
In the context of the sentence, I thought it referred to announcing the date for the Spider-Man sequel. I think Collider should have changed the punctuation to: "... other than we've dated Spider-Man: Homecoming 2 – which wouldn't be the title, but that's what we call it – because that's the agreement we made with Sony ..." - DinoSlider (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Holland confirm?

In a new THR article here, they say (in terms of Holland appearing in Sony's MU) A source says Holland is only contractually obligated to Spider-Man 2 and 3. Is "contractually obligated" enough to use this source here in the draft and other MCU articles where he would need to be sourced for appearing here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Contractually obligated doesn't mean that he will, if they don't want him back or something. What do we usually do for these? Wait for a better source? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Costume details

Are these worth mentioning, even though Homecoming designer Louis Frogley is not returning? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Filming

New info about filming by Feige: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-sequel-to-spider-man-homecoming-spans-the-globe-1825453993 - Medjay Bayek (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it’s begun filming http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/07/02/spider-man-far-from-home-set-photos-tom-holland/ Rusted AutoParts 14:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Principal photography begun?

Screen Rant and Comicbook.com are reporting on photos of Tom Holland on set in England. - Richiekim (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be a case of WP:FRUIT. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't appear too bad, but I don't see any actual evidence that they are filming. We should still hold off for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We've used set photos before. This source is good in my opinion. I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and make the move, adding in that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hemky Maderas return confirmed

Hemky Madera returns as Mr Delmar for the sequel as set photos confirmed that. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.188.91 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Added in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.inverse.com/article/46643-spider-man-homecoming-2-delmar-is-back

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

please I need to edit it 82.16.65.11 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2018 (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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

From or from?

@Favre1fan93:,@Adamstom.97: Momentarily uncertainty concerning which form of 'from' is correct in the case of the title of the Spider-Man sequel. Any way you could chime in on this? I've reverted it (back) to "From", but was not able to undo the redirect made by @Gabrielkat:. On all other articles where the film is mentioned, "From" is used. How to go about this? SassyCollins (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with "From", since it is more than three letters long. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
MOS:TITLECAPS is where we should be looking. It says: Not capitalized: For title case, the words that are not capitalized on Wikipedia (unless they are the first or last word of a title) are: ... Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (as, in, of, on, to, for, from, like, over, with, etc.); but see above for instances where these words are not used as prepositions So the question is "From" being used as a preposition? But also, I feel like this might be a Star Trek Into Darkness situation and "From" should remain captialized... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I've also notified the Film project about the discussion to have more opinions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there is potential to go either way. MOS:CT is the obvious argument for "from", while the Into Darkness discussion suggests that WP:COMMONNAME and the spirit (rather than literal interpretation) of CT could trump that—the idea that "from" is supposedly a less important word, but here there are only three words and the controversial one has proved to be just that. Personally, I prefer to have it capitalised and that is how it appears in the logo, but the official announcement from Sony apparently used lower case and at the moment I don't know if there is a stronger argument than "the studio said it was this". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that, though the Deadline article is "officially" from Sony, it is not a press release, so there is the ~slightest~ potential that Deadline formatted the title that way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I went with "apparently". If we could get the original press release or another one like it from Sony then that would help here. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The official announcement from Sony states the title twice; once with lower case and then capitalized. When hitting the link with the lower case all other mentions are capital. I'll keep looking for info. SassyCollins (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Still, the film's title qualifies as a proper noun, hence all the words in it should begin with caps. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • from – I don't think Star Trek Into Darkness is the correct anology here. The main debate there was whether it was a prepositional phrase (i.e. Star Trek into Darkness) or whether "Into Darkness" was actually just a subtitle but without the formality of a colon. If it is a subtitle then WP:COMMONAME applies (which was the ultimate consensus), and if it is a prepositional phrase then MOS:TITLECAPS applies. In this case there is no doubt that "Far from Home" is a prepositional phrase, which means that "from" should be lowercase as dictated by MOS:TITLECAPS. Collins Dictionary even gives "far from home" as an example of a prepositional phrase (see American usage, section 5). Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'd like to note that it does appear many media outlets are using "Far From Home" as the styling for the film. Would WP:COMMONNAME apply too in this case, since the formatting seems to be overwhelmingly capital F? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Are they using it in the headline or in text body? If in the headline then that does not count as CN as capital letter are often used in every word in a headline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Headlines and body. Here are some examples THR, CBR, EW, Variety, and Comicbook.com to pull from. Deadline is using capital F in the headline, lowercase F in the body. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sources are not always consistent when it comes to title case. This is particularly true of Gone with the Wind, an article I have spent considerably time working on. I tried to clarify the use of "title case" just a few months ago in the context of references (i.e. whether we should be changing the case of source titles to match Wikipedia's house style) and this is how the discussion played out: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_43#To_what_extent_does_MOS:CAPS_apply_to_reference_titles?. It is not exactly the same scenario but personally if I had to call it I would say the same argument applies to article titles. If you want an authoritative opinion though I personally would ask at WT:MOS and just implement what they suggest. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've left discussion notices at multiple MOS and Naming conventions pages. WT:MOS, WT:MOSCAPS, WT:MOS/Titles and WT:Naming conventions (capitalization). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's two more cents: during Tom Holland's "haphazard" reveal he showed the title on a tablet. I can only assume that Marvel put some thought into the logo of the film; Spider-Man: Far From Home. SassyCollins (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That argument isn't grounded in reality. It's standard marketing practice to put all words in a title in capital letters in marketing materials (unless some twee style variance is being used for effect, like all-lowercase stylization); this has nothing whatsoever to do with encyclopedic writing style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • from per Betty Logan. That's Wikipedia's house style. Additionally, this isn't a COMMONNAME issue, because COMMONNAME deals with what things should be called and not how they should be capitalized. Formerip (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • from per Betty Logan with particular attention to the "Gone with the Wind" example. The word being in the middle of the subtitle makes capitalization unnecessary in my opinion. Sock (tock talk) 14:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The analogy to Star Trek Into Darkness is off-kilter. That's an extremely unusual case, maybe even unique, in which we know for a fact that there's intentional ambiguity between a descriptive phrase (of a trek into darkness, amongst the stars) and a subtitle, following all other ST films (Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek: Nemesis). Absolutely nothing like that is happening here. There is no "man far from home, involved with spiders" kind of pun going on. Our having kept it at Star Trek Into Darkness is actually controversial – that was a hard-fought RM, in a series of them (disputed again as recently as Feb. 2018, and earlier in Sept. 2013, May 2013 (light-heartedly, then seriously), April 2013, Feb. 2013 (rather massively, three times - it fills all of Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 7, and 8, then renews in 9), repeatedly throughout Jan. 2013 (including another RM, without forma closure, and about 4 archive pages full of little but dispute about it and meta-commentary about the dispute).

    It's actually not likely to be a permanent consensus – if it is one at all. Curiously, it's unclear how the title actually arrived at what it did. The last un-aborted RM was in 9 January 2013, and it was a request to move from "into" to "Into", with consensus against doing so. (Yes, read that again.) It appears that some WP:FACTION came along and moved it later against that consensus and simply wore everyone else down with tendentiousness. I really don't care much, because the case is weird. What is not okay, though, is trying to use it as a wedge, a toe hold, to push for more capitalization of all four-letter prepositions. None of the cases the "fan-cappers" want – including this Spider-Man movie – are even remotely comparable to Star Trek [i|I]nto Darkness.

    I strongly suspect that fandom-based fear that people may re-RM that article in favor of going back to "Star Trek into Darkness" has a tremendous amount to do with the "ignore all policies and guidelines and enter a WP:ILIKEIT vote" going on in the RM below.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    In one of those RMs I voted for "Star Trek into Darkness" because the director specifically commented there was no colon in the title. That suggested a prepositional phrase to me, and that Paramount was breaking with the tradition of a subtitle. Since then we have had Star Trek Beyond which doesn't make sense as a prepositional phrase, so if we accept "Beyond" as a subtitle I would probably vote to treat "Into Darkness" as a subtitle this time around. Another interesting case was Spectre: the poster had it in block capitals and there was some debate whether the title should be treated as a word (i.e. Spectre) or as an acronym (i.e. SPECTRE). Obviously, if the title was an acronym for the terrorist organization of Fleming's novels then altering the case would constitute a substantive change. This is a case where COMMONNAME should play a legitimate role, because SPECTRE the acronym, is substantively a different title to the word Spectre/SPECTRE even though it looks identical to the upper-case version of the word. There is also a role for WP:IAR too: one strange case I can think of is Dot the i. You can probably make the case that the title should be rendered "Dot the I" through a strict application of the MOS, but in this case the stylisation is a substantive element, because the title is arguably referencing a little "i". So there is definitely a role for COMMONNAME and IAR in considering atypical cases but in this particular case I simply don't see a substantive difference between "From" and "from". Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Interesting digression, except that:
    1. "Beyond" would be capitalized regardless (five or more letters). And it's not ungrammatical in any way, it's just a short construction that doesn't form a complete sentence, as in "Your work this week has really been above and beyond", a shorthand for a longer phrase. Here, Star Trek Beyond is exactly the same pun as in Star Trek Into Darkness: It's simultaneously a subtitle and an evocation of a trek: [into the] beyond, or beyond [the usual], which is taking place amongst the stars. Enough sources treat both ST films has having a subtitle and put a colon or dash/hyphen there, that there's sufficient impetus to treat it as an unusually formatted subtitle; we don't have to read writer/director/marketer minds, just accept that the real world is telling us it's a subtitle. These ST movies wouldn't be the first works with subtitles that don't have delimiters; a common Victorian technique was to simply ramble: "Foo Bar or my adventures in Bazzquuxland", "Foo Bar, being a recounting of Bazzquuxland adventures", "Foo Bar and other exciting stories, including a recounting of Bazzquuxlandian adventures", etc., etc.
    2. In the rebooted Bond fictional universe, Spectre isn't an acronym, so whether it was in the original novels and original film series is irrelevant, and couldn't have any effect on the title of the recent film.
    3. The Dot the i case is a misanalysis: The "i" here is not the word "I", but a literal symbol (a words-as-words case narrowed to glyph-as-glyph) which cannot logically be replaced with "I" (doubly so in this case since it would make the title no longer understandable). If I wrote a novel called The Girl with the j Tattoo, because her tattoo literally was a "j" (not "J"), then it should be rendered that way, certainly not with "J" in the title. Dot the i should technically probably have the markup I just used, for MOS:WAW purposes, but that really does veer toward pedantry. We aren't doing it with the most famous case of this sort, Dial M for Murder (not Dial M for Murder), so we needn't in any identical case.
    Thus, these examples provide zero evidence that WP:COMMONNAME applies to style questions. It really isn't possible that it does, or it would completely obviate the existence of the naming conventions guidelines, as well as MoS (or at least any applicability of MoS to titles). Obviously that's not the case, since the guidelines not only exist, the title policy specifically defers to MoS on style matters (in at least 9 places: 5 in the policy language, 2 for consensus records, plus 2 further cross-references), and we cite MoS at RM more than any other guideline. None of these unusual cases invokes WP:IAR, either. No rule must be ignored to arrive at any of these outcomes; one only has to interpret the rules correctly and apply them as legitimately applicable.

    People who would ask "So how come we use 'iPod' and 'eBay'?" should read MOS:TM: MoS (not AT) specifically allows for following a trademark stylization when RS do so pretty much universally for the case at hand, across all genres of writing. That's not the case with this Spider-Man movie; even some journalistic sources use "from" despite most of them following a four-letter-rule style guide. Those that don't are, naturally, using "from", just like WP does in every single other work title with "from" in the middle of it. This case is not special in any way whatsoever. It's showing up frequently as "From" for one reason only: there are nearly no sources yet that don't follow the AP Stylebook, which is not our stylebook.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A grain of salt...

But Numan Acar seems to confirm SLJ for the film and reveals Cobie Smulders will appear as Maria Hill. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems a little weak to me, but if we got another source to back it up then that would be good. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Just wanted editors to be aware of the potential. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
And now both have been confirmed! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2018

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

No consensus. See no general agreement below to grant this request. Don't really see this as an IAR situation – more like an ISR one. Whenever strong policies and guidelines clash, and they often do clash, that is when we still need discussions like this one to try to garner consensus for or against. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their support args and their rebuttals to opposition args, then try again in awhile to rename this article. I found the support args quite strong, stronger than most of the oppose args, until I read the oppose args that followed the relisting. Those final rationales added the most weight to a no-consensus outcome. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home → Spider-Man: Far from Home – Per MOS:TITLECAPS (and per MOS:TM, WP:NCCAPS, etc.), and for WP:CONSISTENCY with every single other title listed at the Far from Home disambiguation page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 02:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 17:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose: There is a reason why That is Mahalakshmi was moved to That Is Mahalakshmi. The same reason this shouldn't have a small letter. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    LOL, of course there is! Is is a verb. Please actually read MOS:TITLECAPS. Sheesh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the current title accurately reflects the sources. MOS:TITLECAPS is far too pedantic and rigid, especially since most major style guides disagree as to how many letters justify caps vs no caps, and Wikipedia's current guideline is distinctly in the minority (most style guides capitalize prepositions longer than 3 letters). The guideline should be rewritten to allow flexibility so that we can match the actual titles of these works (see Talk:Four past Midnight for another bad application of this pedantry). -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    WP doesn't care what other style guides do; there is no "Style Guide Normalization Enforcement Directorate" out there who get to impose their standards on Wikipedia. News-writing style guides favor capitalizing prepositions of four letters or longer (the "four-letter" rule). But Wikipedia as a matter of clear policy is not written in news style. (The four-letter rule is primarily an AP Stylebook thing; all publishers that follow AP style – most American newspapers – are all effectively a single source on this.) Academic style guides like Chicago Manual of Style and Scientific Style and Format capitalize zero prepositions of any kind, even huge ones like alongside and throughout. Policy again: Wikipedia is not an academic journal or written like one. One of the very few things MoS has picked up from an aggregation of tertiary-source, university-textbook style manuals is their split-the-difference approach, the MOS:5LETTER rule; it's a happy medium between the two irksome extremes (and some news publishers go even more extreme, down to three letters). WP has its own style guide for a reason; a "because I saw it in some other style guide somewhere else" argument is never a valid RM rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't say I "saw it in another style guide" I said I saw this title in the sources. If the MOS isn't based on other style guides, then its WP:OR to apply it to a particular topic. The proposed move also fails WP:Verifiability. These are CORE policies, not to be overwritten by some house guidelines. There is no technical reason in the wiki software that we cannot present this title in the same form as is used in the majority of reliable sources, and so it should not be changed. Wikipedia doesn't "need" a style guide, except for technical issues. That we have one that has expanded so far beyond that limited purpose is more about preventing internal disputes - but that is secondary to presenting the topic accurately based on reliable sources. No one would be proposing this title change EXCEPT for the existence of the MOS because this title change could not be supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's house style should not come before accurately presenting this topic to the public, and that means retaining the current title. -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Been over this already [1]. You're engaging in the specialized-style fallacy. Reliable sources about facts about a topic are not reliable sources for how WP must write about the topic. We have our own style guide for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per existing Wikipedia MoS and practice; sources don't come into it. The place to discuss changes to the MoS is WT:Manual of Style/Titles, not here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I am just going to reiterate what I wrote above: there is no doubt that "Far from Home" is a prepositional phrase, which means that "from" should be lowercase as dictated by MOS:TITLECAPS. Collins Dictionary even gives "far from home" as an example of a prepositional phrase (see American usage, section 5). Betty Logan (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yep, the desire to over-capitalize here is "fan-capping", i.e. mimicry of stylization on the cover, poster, or other marketing of the work, like the attempt to move our article on the song "Do It like a Dude" to "Do It Like A Dude", complete with a capital "A". This is not a new discussion, just rehash of the same common-style fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:TITLECAPS. Wikipedia has its own style guide, and a style guide only makes sense if it is applied consistently. How the title is capitalized elsewhere is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Darkday (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:TITLECAPS. Wikipedia article naming policy clearly supports this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. "From" is rarely if ever capitalized in Wiki titles. No reason to be inconsistent.Nohomersryan (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From a check of Google News, I can find exactly one source that uses a lowercase f in "from", and that source, Movieweb, is inconsistent and uses both lowercase-f and uppercase-F (link: [2]). Every single other source consistently uses "From." See the various media articles and wider editor uproar at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness and its archives ("Into" is also a preposition and should also be de-capped by a strict reading of TITLECAPS... and it was for awhile... and that was a huge mistake). TITLECAPS is okay where if there's split usage, Wikipedia should consistently pick the lowercase one, fine. However, TITLECAPS never has meant that Wikipedia should invent new capitalizations that are unsupported by sources. This isn't a "common style" issue; this is closer to MOS:TM saying "do not invent new styles that are not used by independent sources." In this particular case, we have exactly one sloppy website that uses a mixed style as the only evidence for "from". That isn't enough, IMO. (If other sources can be found that suggest the split is even 80-20, I'll change my vote, but it looks more like 98-2 at the moment.) SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    You are conflating two different issues and they are not analogous. The argument that was central to the Star Trek Into Darkness debate was whether "into" is a preposition in the prepositional phrase "Star Trek into Darkness", or whether Into Darkness is a subtitle, just without the formality of a colon. Going by the title of the next film (Star Trek Beyond) which makes no grammatical sense as a phrase, the consensus that Into Darkness is a subtitle would seem to be the correct one. If "Into Darkness" is treated as a subtitle then TITLECAPS instucts that "Into" should be capitalised. Nobody here is actually arguing that "Far from Home" is not a prepositional phrase. As Darkday points out, the whole purpose of Wikipedia having a style guide is to override the styling utilised by reliable sources. If styling is not consistent then it becomes arbitrary, so we end up with situations like the one at Far from Home where articles that share titles have different stylings for no good reason other than that they draw from different sources with different style guides. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    That might be your analysis, but it isn't mine. What I'm saying is that even if "into" was indisputably a preposition and also not part of a subtitle, Star Trek into Darkness would still be wrong because it is Wikipedia inventing its own capitalization that was honored in basically no other source at the time, official & unofficial.
    Think of it this way: if a book or movie title uses weird spelling, Wikipedia clearly shouldn't "fix" the error - Terminator Genisys is at its title, not a "fixed" "Terminator Genesis." It follows that the same is true of capitalization, within reason. In practice, there will be tons of sources that use a more sane, TITLECAPS-approved form for something named the likes of "LUCKY 💗 HEART" and just call it "Lucky Heart". But if a capitalization is consistently honored by even formal-ish sources, well, that's clearly what the usage is, and honoring reliable sources is a core tenet of Wikipedia, both in content and in style.
    As for "style guide" philosophy, I think that if two articles differ in title because reliable sources treat them differently, that's an excellent reason for them to differ, actually. Anyway, the style guide does not instruct us to ignore reliable sources. You're clearly using sources to derive that the subtitle is some variant of "far from home" to begin with; what's wrong with also letting them inform the correct display? The "do not make stuff up" principle is very well-established and is a valid part of the Wikipedia guidelines. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, Wikipedia invents its own capitalisation. That is the purpose of a style guide. Likewise, our style guide could just as easily instruct us to write titles all in block capitals if it so wished. It seems to me you are actually arguing against the application of a style guide in this capacity, and arguing for COMMONAME to be extended to capitalisation but I agree with Michael Bednarek that is basically a policy level discussion. Currently the article naming guidelines for works instruct us to invent our own capitalisation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • More importantly, SnowFire appears to be unaware of the MOS:5LETTER rule. "News stories use 'From'" isn't evidence, it's a tautology. Almost all news style guides (AP Stylebook etc.) apply a four-letter rule to capitalization of prepositions in titles of works. WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy. High-academic style guides like Chicago Manual of Style and Scientific Style and Format apply a capitalize-no-prepositions rule (they lower-case even long ones like alongside and throughout) MoS, like other more mainstream style guides, splits the difference and uses a five-letter rule. How the entertainment press is writing is completely irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And what I am saying is that if it turns out you are "right" and some rule considers what reliable sources write "completely irrelevant", then those rules are wrong, and should be changed to match the exact same standard used everywhere else for everything else in Wikipedia: reliance on what sources say, not some editor's beliefs about proper stylization. I believe you've demanded more guideline citing below, so here's two for you: WP:V for verifiability, and WP:NOR for no original research, 2 of the 3 core policies on Wikipedia. They (should) apply for style as much as for content. Style rules for how to tiebreak when there's mixed sources, sure. Style rules that invent novel titles, no. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Not a relevant argument for this or any other RM. If you want to propose that MOS:5LETTER be deleted and we just follow what 50.00001% of reliable sources do on a case-by-case basis, you can open a proposal at WT:MOS about it. It will be a WP:SNOW oppose, because this kind of idea is perennial rehash and counter to the entire notion and purpose of a style guide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I'm continuing at this, but please actually read what I wrote. I didn't say 50.0001%, wherein I would agree style guidelines have their place. We're talking about the 99%+ case, as should have been very clear from everything written above - including Betty Logan, incidentally (who supports the move but at least calls it for what it is, style guidelines inventing a new title not reflected at all in sources). SnowFire (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Renaming this article to Spider-Man: Far Away from Home would be inventing a new title, but simply changing the capitalization isn't. from is still the same word when spelled From or FROM. When a movie poster is designed, the designer picks a font, selects a font color, decides whether to print the title in bold or in italics, and decides which words to capitalize. These are all style choices, and we don't have to mimic them here. Wikipedia uses its own style. Darkday (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
While I realize some other editors mentioned movie posters, I personally did not. I'm referring to reliable sources, wherein nobody seems to use "from". The likes of news articles at the moment, and eventually printed media and scholarly articles. (The comments about whether the meaning changes are irrelevant - sometimes the meaning will change, sometimes it won't, but why should it even matter if no sources agree that this even is the title to begin with?) SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
We've already been over this in detail [3]. See also [4]. "Lots of news sources do it" is meaningless, when we know that the news sources follow a particular style rule (the four-letter rule) while other publications, including WP, do not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Tony, I have to challenge your statement that it is of the “utmost importance” that en.wp have a consistent style. Sure, it is less jarring for our readers when everything follows a consistent style... it’s nice to have consistency... but is it of “utmost importance”? Nah. Even the MOS itself notes that we can (and do) make occasional exceptions. The question we need to ask here is “why should we make an exception in this case?” I don’t have an opinion on that. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I, too, would like very much to hear why this is of "utmost importance". If that were the case, we'd list the MOS alongside Wikipedia's five pillars (which are what most people would think of as utmost importance). Making a hyperbolic statemen,and then failing to explain it when asked, is hardly constructive. -- Netoholic @ 09:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Imagine the chaos that would result if every style issue had to be litigated based on prevalence in movie posters and such. Following our own guidelines is easy, painless, and sensible in this cases and similar cases. And downcasing prepositions certainly will not result in any decrease in recognizability. Dicklyon (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - due to the official logo used as revealed during the title reveal, used a the format at which it is currently titled. It's a film title, not a phrase. Titles can be whatever the author/creator determines. The formatting should reflect the official title per the studio. Not nitpicking/need-something-to-do editors. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Since none of the opposers are proposing a move to SPIDER-MAN: Far From Home, they're all some of them are picking which part of the title's formatting they want to keep. Also, this is an incredibly minor change which will have zero impact on any readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Totally silly strawman argument. This is about how reliable sources present the title in text, and about how the WP MOS is too rigid with regards to the number of characters in length a preposition has to be to determine caps or no caps. WP is essentially defining a more rigid rule than exists in the real world, when in fact the guideline should be flexible to allow titles to be reflective of the actual reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The official logo appears to have a capital "F" (yes it's all caps, but see the "upper-case" size of the first letters versus the rest in "lower-case"), not to mention 99% of all sources online use upper-case for each first letter, and the official Marvel.com website uses an upper-case "F". Until we have official sources, or even a significant number of sources, with the lower-case "f", I disagree with this move. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 13:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    Please read discussions don't just "vote" in them. See WP:OFFICIALNAME. The "officialness" of something is irrelevant on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Why do you assume Nick Mitchell 98 has not read the discussion? I have, and you seem to approach anybody with an opposing view in a very derogatory manner. Maybe you should take a step back from this discussion as you seem to be losing sleep over the matter. SassyCollins (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    You seem to be projecting strange assumptions. Did you have anything substantive to say, or is this just your ad hominem party? I've said nothing derogatory at all. Criticism of arguments grounded in subjective preferences and in WP:P&G-denial isn't a comment on the editor or their mental state, unlike what you just posted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: I have indeed read the discussion, and I decided to list my points to make my reasons for opposition clear since the discussion above was filled with different content and opinions. I also ask, how is an official source from Marvel not considered to be at least partially more substantial than other sources, especially considering there are very few sources with the lower-case "f" in the first place? On a separate note, I have to agree with @SassyCollins, your approach in responding to the discussion above, and in the Four (Past/past) Midnight discussion, comes across as rather abrasive and accusatory for anybody with a different opinion to yours. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    Then why are you making "it's official" arguments when WP:OFFICIALNAME renders them invalid?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting that the official source is unquestionable and running against WP:OFFICIALNAME, what I was trying to say was that there just happens to be an official source that corroborates the usage of title-case currently in place by 90% of the internet. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 06:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    The problem is that it doesn't matter. That the makers of the film use SPIDER-MAN: Far From Home in their own materials has no bearing on how WP writes. This is why we have MOS:TITLECAPS, MOS:TM, WP:NCCAPS, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, etc. If "it's official" mattered, we would just delete all that guideline material, and closely mimic the stylization of logos and posters and album covers. If how entertainment news styled things mattered, we would not have a policy stating "Wikipedia is not written in news style". If how random forum and blog posters were writing things mattered, WP would have no style guide at all, and just let chaos reign.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    The fact that "Spider-Man" appears in all-caps on the logo means nothing beyond a stylistic choice by the studio; most film logos are in all-caps, but when written normally, sentence case or title case is used. You are trying to redirect the conversation by suggesting to capitalising all aspects of the title (i.e. "SPIDER-MAN") if we keep the current subtitle, versus noticing that the subtitle is written in title case not only in the logo but on 90% of the internet; the usage on the internet being the key to naming this article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 11:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    The fact that movie studio, TV show producers, record labels, etc., goof around with capital letters is half the entire point: the "official" stylization has bupkus to do with how Wikipedia writes. The other half is that about 95% of English-language news publishers follow the four-letter rule and with us write "From" not matter what the work in question in. A film studies journal will almost certainly do exactly the opposite, following academic style to capitalize zero prepositions in titles ever. WP and various non-news, non-academic publishers use the five-letter rule rule between the extremes. Saying "all these news sources use 'From'" means nothing but "yes, I did not lie to you: they really do follow the four-letter rule, and it is not our rule". Trying to rely on news sources for how to capitalize a four-letter preposition is about equivalent to asking Christians how true everything in the bible is. You'll "learn" that 90+ percent of them believe it's all true, and if you ask no one else, you'll never get a contrary opinion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nick Mitchell 98 and others. WP should not fiddle with the titles of works. SMcCandlish, it is you who should see WP:OFFICIALNAME, and read what it actually says! It does NOT issue a general invitation to WP MOS-nerds to crawl over everything. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, until the film comes out. I was hoping to find some reason to be neutral (seriously SMcCandlish, I was), and looked at the titles of the references, but every source seems to uniformly put 'From' in upper-case. This could be another Four past Midnight dispute. Wikipedia is the world's best, and slowly becoming the world's most trusted, encyclopedia (as people use it and don't find as many mistakes as they think they will). If a major film is misnamed when they come here to read about it then that seems to me to potentially harm the subtle and delicate reputation of Wikipedia, at least on a subconscious level. If a work of art has an official name which is simple, easily seen, and is the obvious recognized common name of the piece, then the title of Wikipedia's page on it should reflect what the rest of the world is calling it. An editor above mentioned that the problem may also be that Wikipedia uses a five-letter rule while the standard is three. Maybe we should change the standard here to three, and this title dispute, along with King's book title, might point the way to that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    There is no "the standard"; journalism usually follows a four-letter rule, though occasionally some publishers go as low as three. Book publishers mostly follow five, journals infinity (i.e., never capitalize any preposition). We've been over this detail many times.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    The 1990 to 2008 n-gram for Four past Midnight, which has been mentioned as an equivalent to this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    And ready debunked as invalid evidence [5]; it's abuse of statistics. You can't use evidence that news publications do X and Wikipedia does Y to "prove" that WP is wrong, when news style guides use one rule, and WP uses a different rule (and journals use a third). All you've done is proved that news publications do in fact follow the four-letter rule, which was never in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    Look at the n-gram again, there is not even a blip for lower-case of the Stephen King book. Nothing, not even on the horizon. Common name means the entire name, styling and all, although some editors don't think that's included. Upper or lower case makes a large difference in most recognizable names in English, and they shouldn't look "odd" as the Wikipedia name for the King book now does, and this Spider man film seems to be shaping up to be in that same territory if it's lower-cased. These two examples alone show that the "four-letter rule" of Wikipedia, compared with the "three-letter rule" of most sources, should change (and it would not effect pages like Gone with the Wind, which would keep the lower-case 'with'). Wikipedia changing to a three-letter rule style in some cases would keep up with the sources and society's accepted style, seems the most common sense approach, and would remove the need for discussions such as this where the name differs so much from the common name that it jumps out at the reader. As for academic journals, many of Wikipedia's pages can keep that rule, but titles of artworks which are simple enough to be kept as the art pieces name maybe should have overwhelming agreement in order to alter them from the most recognizable form. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    COMMONNAME does not mean "styling and all". It has never meant that, it does not mean that now, and it never will. You can keep asserting this every single day for the next 50 years and will never be true. It could not possible mean that, or we could not have style guidelines (or at least they could never be applied to titles, yet they are the most common WP:P&G every applied to title, thus disproving your premise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC); rev'd. 22:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly the common name and proper one. MoS pedantry isn't helping the support case. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support per MOS:CT. We do not source style, we follow our own in-house style. WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant for these cases, as the name is not under question, just how we style it. --woodensuperman 14:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, the guideline ignores many common styling guides who use the four-letter rule when it requests (remember, guidelines are not policy. common sense and occasional exceptions apply) that editors lower-case "Prepositions that contain five letters or more". This is a request, not a "we follow our own in house style" order. An occasional common sense titling-style decision is called for, and this seems to be one of them. If Wikipedia misnames an internationally popular film, which this may or may not be (WP:CRYSTAL), then it loses just a bit more trust from readers, even if on an unconscious level. In an effort to improve the encyclopedia, lower-casing this page will arguably do the opposite. That's a reason that "Ignore all Rules" is a reasonable overriding pillar, because if a rule (a policy or guideline) doesn't improve the encyclopedia, and ignoring it does, we are asked to ignore it. That's one reason why the common sense approach suggested by the guideline language, and upper-casing "From" here and "Past" at Four past Midnight, well, makes sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Nonsense. We are not "misnaming" by following our own style. The name remains the same, whether we style it "Far From Home", "Far from Home" or "far from home". We will not lose trust from readers if we follow our own style, in fact, the opposite applies. As a professional publication, we keep our integrity by maintaining a consistent style. There is no justification for an IAR exception here. --woodensuperman 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    One editor's nonsense is another's common sense. We are asked in the text of the guideline to treat guidelines "with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The film is an artwork, and artworks are usually, as in this instance, most recognizable in English with the name that is given them by their creators and by sources. In this artwork 'From' is commonly upper-cased, an easily understood concept. Keeping its most recognizable title casing is not nonsense but a valid interpretation of common sense as called for in both the guideline template text and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, by the way, WP:TITLEFORMAT is policy, and that defers to WP:NCCAPS and the MOS in these cases, both of which specifically state that "from" should start with a lowercase letter. --woodensuperman 15:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Round and round. You just went back to WP:NCCAPS, where the five-letter rule resides, and which includes the instructions "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The correct name of this possibly-blockbuster film includes the upper-case 'From', so using it makes common sense and can easily be included as one of the occasional exceptions. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Well, MOS:5LETTER is really Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters; everything in WP:NCCAPS is just a summarization of MoS rules as applied to titles, plus a few things that apply on to our article titles (e.g. at WP:NCCAPS#Software characteristics, none of which are implicated here).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    The obvious holes in this reasoning: Guidelines apply even when you don't like them. Exceptions are made when a valid IAR rationale applies. Doing one "from" title differently from all others does not qualify. The exact same newspaper that give this as "Far From Home" also capitalize "from" in every single other title of a work with "From" in it because their house style is the four-letter rule. There is absolutely nothing special or unusual about this particular title. There is no "misnaming" here. Every single publisher has a four-letter rule (or even shorter), a five-letter rule, or a never-cap-any-prepositions rule, and each applies this rule consistently to the title of all works it writes about. By your reasoning, every single publisher in the world is "misnaming" some large subset of works. It's just irrational and counterfactual. What loses trust from readers is when WP has a consistent style, then departs from it to make a "magical exception" for one particular work to mimic its marketing. It looks like we're in the pocket of the company behind the work. This is the furthest thing from "improving the encyclopedia", its trying to force what you want, for personal, subjective style reasons, at Wikipedia's expense. PS: WP:IAR is not one of the WP:5PILLARS; you need to read and understand policies (and metapolicies like that one) before you cite them. Start with WP:WIARM as an intro to how IAR actually works: there has to be an objective not subjective improvement, or IAR does not apply (otherwise we'd simply have no rules at all, because everyone could ignore them with impunity on personal whim). PPS: Whether capitalizing "Past" makes sense in another title is a completely different matter (namely that some people don't like the application of the five-letter rule to prepositions that often are not prepositions; I've even suggested that we modify the 5LR to exempt them, but this would have no bearing whatsoever on a case like this).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support When writing or editing articles, the Manual of Style should always be followed; it's not just a simple suggestion for editors. With that said, if you go to MOS:TITLECAPS as the OP mentions, the very first thing it says at the top is to "For capitalization in Wikipedia article titles, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)". This is the relevant page we should refer to since this discussion is about the capitalization in the name of the article. Well, according to this very page, it specifically states to capitalize every letter "except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, and prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle". Notice it specifically includes the word from. So since the word from doesn't occur at the beginning or end of the title/subtitle, then we must lowercase it. So far nobody has mentioned anything from the MOS to support their opposition to this change; instead, they simply say we should ignore the MOS because they disagree with it... TheSameGuy (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    • "You seem to be confusing guidelines with policies. Guidelines ask Wikipedians to follow them, but a guideline is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". There is no guideline that is set in stone, and to present this film's name in its most familiar form in English is common sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Using this "common sense" argument doesn't mean a thing. It's for when an issue isn't covered by the MOS, hence editors would need to use common sense to decide what to do. This issue however is specifically covered in the MOS, according to which "from" should be lowercase for this article. To claim that we should ignore the MOS because you think the film should be presented in its "most familiar form" exposes a flaw in your argument. If we should indeed follow your advice and ignore the MOS for this film because you feel the title should be exactly what it is on the poster, then why would ANY other film ever be subjected to these guidelines in the MOS? Apparently, based on your argument, these guidelines shouldn't ever apply to films because we can always just use the spelling on the poster instead, right? Of course, that's ridiculous! Again, as I mentioned earlier, nobody who has opposed this has actually provided anything from the MOS or Wikipedia policy to back up their arguments; they simply feel it should be uppercase because of "common sense". Also, I'd like to point out, these are not just guidelines; these are Wikipedia policy as per WP:TITLE which states the same thing about naming conventions in the WP:TITLEFORMAT section. TheSameGuy (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name. I’d also note to the closing admin that many supporters appear to have been canvassed here from the MOS talk page. Calidum 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. Please consider earlier discussion #From or from? when closing this, as editors involved there have not all commented in this RM. --woodensuperman 12:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, a good discussion, and it uses as an example and highlights the Star Trek Into Darkness RM which upper-cased that name since 2013. Exceptions exist, and for much the same reasons as the "Into" in the Star Trek film, this page should be upper-cased. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, that is a completely different situation. Star Trek Into Darkness is being treated as if the "Into Darkness" part is a subtitle, i.e. Star Trek: Into Darkness. Absolutely nothing like the situation we have here... --woodensuperman 09:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yep. Though the closer should review that discussion as well, for completeness (especially since some of it is still ongoing despite the RM being open).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY Oppose: Editors are now creating their own rules against a studio's official title for the film? Just look at the logo. It uses a capital letter for 'From'. That alone is enough to end this debate. We are not here to debate about proper English formatting. A title can be anything that the author or creator wants it to be. A film title isn't beholden to formatting rules. The title of the film is Spider-Man: Far From Home and needs to stay that way.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for handily proving that people are arriving here and just "voting" with absolutely no awareness of how WP determines article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Only way it should be capitalized is if it was not used as a preposition and it clearly was. We follow specific guidelines regardless if it opposes the official title or what. For a more relevant comparison Avengers: Age of Ultron is advertised in the poster as Avengers: AGE OF ULTRON but that doesn't mean we have to copy it. So to determine how to properly write it, we follow MOS:TITLECAPS. Tbb 911 (talk), 23:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The official logo spells "Far From HOME". Can that settle any confusion? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, this was raised above already. The pro-capitalization camp here are selectively applying a personal preference just to try to evade our style guideline, cherry-picking which capitals to apply based on how they prefer to write off-site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The P&G arguments for moving this page are clear and have not been refuted in kind. Primergrey (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The argument that our style guide trumps common usage when it comes to cases like this is often deployed, but also often rejected, where sources predominate strongly for one form over another, as is the case here. See Bend It Like Beckham for example, and also Talk:Girls Like You#Requested move 12 June 2018, a recent RM which I initiated, but which didn't pass, demonstrating the community's ambivalence on this issue. A common style is good, but it should not be used to take us so far out of the realm of what everyone else is saying that we start to stick out. I see a lot of emotion in this discussion and far less analysis of what is the best title for the encyclopedia or for our readers.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I've read all of the above discussion. I think following usage in reliable English sources even for style issues like capitalization is far more consistent with our policy pillars than is creating and following our own style guidelines. It's one thing to invent a descriptive title for a topic not covered in reliable source (like for any one of the "List of ..." titles), or to follow our own style guide when guidance from common usage is unavailable or unclear, but in a case like this where common usage is clear, to use a style for a title that is contrary to common usage in relevant sources just doesn't make sense, and I think hurts WP because it makes us an oddball in terms of how we reference the topic in question. Above, I see no cited benefit to our readers or to anyone for us to use our own style for this or any title instead of the one clearly favored by usage in reliable sources, which the current title reflects. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per points raised. The official title has the f capitalized. Falls under COMMONNAME. Rusted AutoParts 22:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per above--Valkyrie Red (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Alleged misconduct

Calidum Would you provide a link to the canvassing please? I was not aware that there was any going on. The closer ideally needs to be able to see the nature of the canvassing to determine to what extent it has influenced the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Here you go [6]. Calidum 20:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I honestly think SMcCandlish's intention there is to revise the guideline rather than to canvass for this discussion. I think he made a mistake though linking to a live RFC. He probably did it because it was a good example of the type of problem he wanted to address but I agree the post could have a canvassing effect. On the other hand he did start that discussion when this RFC was at an advanced state; since July 23 (when he started that discussion) there have been two "support" votes and five "oppose" votes (including yours) so if there was any canvassing it has had minimal effect, and may even have worked against him. All the other "support" votes came before he started that discussion so they arrived via other means. For example, I entered this debate via the neutral notification at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_70#Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home_naming_discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes; I consider this RM to be a lost cause, because the fan-cappers have obviously been engaging in WP:MEAT, presumably via e-mail. It's unprecedented that this many people who do not understand our style guidelines and title policies suddenly show up en masse to vote against them and in favor of "marketing caps", directly against literally thousands of precedents (every single other work title on WP with "from" in mid-title). It's the only plausible explanation, because this film does not even exist; it's just a future release slated for some time in 2019. There is no reason at all that lots and lots of people's attention would magically focus here out of the blue, unless they were asked to do so. My expectation has been that the RM would close as "no consensus" or maybe even "not moved", then go to WP:MR, where the actual policy-based arguments should prevail.

My intent in opening the thread at WT:MOS is to correct whatever vagueness issue we have in the guidelines that makes this kind of fiasco even possible. Which is very clear if you just go read it. I haven't asked anyone to come and !vote here; this is already a train wreck. And simply notifying WT:MOS that such a discussion exists is not canvassing anyway; it's one of the most-watchlisted guidelines on the system, so such a notice attracts additional input from a broad sector (including the MoS-defiant).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That many hundreds of examples exist shows that letting this one stay is an exception. Exceptions are called for in the guideline template. And no, it's not even clear if this film will be named with the upper-case, but that's how it seems to be being discussed. An exception here, and at Four past Midnight (which remember, has no lower-case presence on the n-gram grabber), does not seem unreasonable. They just don't look right lower-cased, and for the editors that can see that, backed up with sources, that is where "common sense" comes in. As for e-mailing, I've neither heard from or written any of the editors who have commented here. An odd thing to have to say, but you're being pretty direct in your accusation so I'll simply answer it for myself. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I just took a look at daily views, and am surprised that the page is averaging over 10,000 views a day, especially being so far out from a release date. My spidey sense tells me that maybe one explanation of interest in this RM is that some Wikipedia editors are bound to be among those viewing the page, and the RM notice is the first thing they see. So maybe a walking back of the e-mail and meat-puppet suspicions might be considered. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You're engaging in circular reasoning: "I want an exception. If it was different, then it would be an exception, thus an exception is warranted." Templates have nothing to do with anything. That some exceptions are possible does not mean every exception someone might want is a valid one. Why this one is not valid has been explained to you more times and in more ways that 50 human beings should need. "They just don't look right" = WP:IDONTLIKEIT; not a valid argument. WP:Common sense has no applicability to your argument other than opposition to it. There is no common sense whatsoever in making an exception because some random person is insistent about it, when no actual rationale for an exception applies. That would be the opposite of common sense, and would just reward and inspire escalating behavior to demand exceptions to more and more things that we should not make exceptions for. (Slippery slope is quite often a valid argument, especially when there's strong evidence to support it, such as a continual habit of opposing MoS's applicability to hundreds of RM discussions based on your personal preferences instead of RS or P&G rationales.) Ten thou. hits per day is quite low for a non-obsolete topic in a major franchise.

I didn't suggest you personally were invited to this discussion. I already know that you comb the WP:RM listings for moves to oppose on anti-MoS grounds; I rarely encounter you (or Johnbod) doing anything, besides arguing at MoS talk pages against MoS's applicability to some other hobbyhorse of yours (i.e., more of the same thing). At some point you need to just let go of the fact that less than 100% of MoS says exactly what you wish it said. You're also engaging in WP:IDHT and "proof by assertion" again. It's already been pointed out to you twice that the prepositional use of "past" is unrelated to this discussion and that it might even make a viable exception proposal, yet you keep trotting it out as if you argument about it had not already been repeatedly debunked. This kind of argumentum ad nauseam behavior is antithetical to consensus formation and needs to stop. All it does is mire the page in circular argument.

If you look at the contribution histories of the oppose commenters you find that quite a few have only been here for 1–3 years and are almost exclusively focused on pop-culture topics, and in one case mostly on comics-related stuff; there's a natural bias among such editors to a) mimic marketing stylizations of the works of which they are fans, and b) to treat entertainment-press style as "the only style", despite us having a clear policy that it is not our style.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

RM's are a tiny percentage of things I do here, and that we don't "encounter" each other outside of backroom pages is neither here nor there (mostly there). Most of what you say about me is, as almost always, inaccurate. As for editors who focus only on pop-culture topics, they are called, at Wikipedia, editors. Or users. Or people, some of whom know what they're talking about, others slinging wild accusations. All of them acting in good faith and believing what they say. Spiderman: Far From Home has a zing to it that Spiderman: Far from Home doesn't. If the sources say that it is the most common form of title in English then there is no reason to criticize editors who value "common name", or malign editors who comment different than you. That meat-puppet thing goes a bit over the line, and once you take a clearer look at it you may agree. 10,000 people a day look at this page, makes sense that some editors will too. As for Johnbod, he is an extremely valuable editor, and I usually encounter him daily on pages well away from these back corridors of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
That editors strongly focused on pop-culture topics have stylistic biases in favor of entertainment journalism isn't a wild accusation, but clear and self-evident. It does not matter how good their faith is, how firmly they believe they are right, when they are not, when they do not understand how WP does titles. WP doesn't operate on "zing". That's pure WP:ILIKEIT "feels" again. Whether you and Johnbod are valuable editors is irrelevant; your input at RM discussions is both frequent and verging on consistently anti-guideline, i.e. defiant of long-extant consensus you don't like. It is not okay to perpetually lobby against application of applicable rules because you wish they'd change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Read my comments again, I was using "zing" in connection with editors who both feel that the upper-case name is better (WP:ILIKEIT) combined (key word combined) with sources agreeing that the upper-case is the early common name and the most recognizable name. That's why I say that this could end up as another Four past Midnight (and yes, I see that you may be open to defining that in such a way as it could be moved), or more likely a Star Trek Into Darkness series of RM's which have made the upper-case stable since 2013. So the "zing" I describe is knowing that the upper-case is probably correct in this case, both in sourced materials and in the common name given to it by the public. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually most of our guideline-related encounters seem to me to have me opposing unwise (and unpopular) proposals by you to change guidelines and such things, because, you claim, they have broken down, are useless, etc etc. But sometimes it is the other way round, in which case the guideline assumes, in your presentation, a status part-way between the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Nah, the vast majority of our style-related encounters are at RM, when you make special pleading demands over and over and over again for exceptions, without any actual IAR basis. Of course anyone who says a guideline should apply to something you don't want it to apply to is going to seem like a guideline-thumper to you. But we actually have guidelines for a reason. If WP:JDLI arguments of the sort you bring to RMs (e.g. against dozens of ", Jr." → "Jr." moves, over more than a year, despite a Village Pump RfC going against your viewpoint) were valid or even regularly entertained, we would have no style guidelines or naming conventions at all. We would just see what 51% of total sources do for the case in question, and mandatorily imitate that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Czech Republic

According to The Prague Reporter, shooting is supposed to begin this month in the Czech Republic. I don't if this source is reliable though. - Richiekim (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be a single author, so I'd say probably not reliable. But something to be on the look out for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Location: Liberec, Czech Republic

From 17th to 29th September, 2018, the shooting is supposed to take place in Liberec, Czech Republic [7] --Baddotbug (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal's casting

Just curiosity on my part, but I thought Gyllenhaal was only rumored to be cast as Mysterio. Only a few days ago Kevin Feige said it was mere speculation while he was being interviewed on the topic of the film's title. If you have some proof that he was actually cast could you provide it? Thank you. NowIsntItTime 03:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NowIsntItTime (talk • contribs)

We don't always go on what the actual producers say when it is likely they are denying something solely for the fact that they are not ready to announce it. We have reliable sources stating that he has indeed been cast, regardless of whether Marvel is ready to say as such, and those sources have been provided in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what NowIsntItTime says is true. In this interview, Feige says, "Well, I mean, sure, let the speculation begin". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't true... adamstom97 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: You pulled the wrong part of the article to quote. That was in regards to the plot RE the title. Here's on Gyllenhaal: "Feige notes that this casting is not officially confirmed yet." As Adam said, we do have a reliable source stating the deal got completed, even though it has not been officially announced from Marvel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Still, in Finnish Wikipedia, I've decided to keep Gyllenhaal out of the cast list until this "official confirmation" Feige talks about actually comes. CAJH (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

So shouldn't jake Gyllenhaal be casted in an undisclosed like jb smoove because he not confirmed as mysterio just yet Underdog0123 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

i think that danny elfman or lorne balfe should be composer for the movie 165.161.3.60 (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you're saying they actually are the composer for the movie, please provide a reliable source to support that information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert: Premise

Should you insert a "Spoiler Alert" sub-title to the title Premise? e.g. Premise:Spoiler Alert, reading beyond this point puts you at risk of a spoiler due to the movie had yet been released, continue reading at your own risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizo crom (talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. Please read WP:SPOILER. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"one of their Boeing 777 aircraft"

I might be missing something here. But to me it seems that this sentence should say: United Airlines served as a promotional partner on the film, with one of their Boeing 777 aircrafts and several United employees appearing in the film. With "aircrafts" instead of "aircraft". Soronast (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home/Archive_1&oldid=1137198323"