Talk:Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stan lee cameo?

Does anyone know if Stan Lee will be involved? If so, please update the main article. 2605:E000:AA1F:E400:BDDA:933C:C22F:A70F (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Production companies

@Adamstom.97: can you explain this edit? Variety Insight is Variety' film database, and I'm not sure why you're blanking this citation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you look at my edit again? I am not blanking citations, I am restoring the entire page to what the sources say. If I caught something I shouldn't have removed by accident, then I apologise, but it is clear from my edit summary that this was not my intent. Now, on the citation specifically, I have seen this starting to be used a bit recently, but when I looked at it I thought it was not a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:FILM/R. This is obviously a reliable source – it's fact-checked by Variety magazine. It is pretty much the most reliable source we have for this information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I know that Variety is reliable, I just didn't think that this other source was. Having another look now, I think it is fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So can I now re-add the production companies' sources'? IceWalrus236 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, now I am taking issue with this source again. You have just tried to use this database as a source to change information that is reliable, so I am now wondering where Variety is getting the data to add to this database. For instance, is there any other source saying that the release date is December 14, or do we just have to believe that they found that it was changed and instead of writing an article about it just updated their database? I just get the feeling that there should at least be a Variety article supporting each bit of the data in this database, and those would be preferrable for sources over the database itself. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh... Well, I was primarily trying to do this because of a consensus earlier that required production companies to have sources (as NinjaRobotPirate pointed out on my talk page), not to mention that the same source was used for several other films that were released over the prior year, as well as several that weren't even out yet. And that's not even mentioning the people edit warring over SPA's other movie releases this year regarding production companies, both of which have Variety Insight citations as well. I would also like to point out that I was not trying to cause an edit war regarding the edits at all, so if I was trying to cause a hassle regarding the edits, I apologize. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Variety Insight is definitely a reliable source, and it shouldn't be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is reliable or not, I stand by my question. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

One Month Later...

Well, since this discussion has been in limbo for nearly a month, I'm just going to call it a day and not bother with adding the source here until at least the second trailer is dropped. IceWalrus236 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Variety Insight. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures

I just don't see why every movie Columbia doesn't get the distributor name every time for its new movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:120E:C0C8:0:222A:66BC:2530 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It is listed under production studio because it is the producing studio. Sony Pictures Releasing is the main distribution arm for Sony. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Imageworks

@Adamfinmo: I have provided a source from the directors of the film stating that Imageworks is the animation company behind the film (It also states as much on Imageworks' website, and that can be added as an additional source if required). What is your justification for removing accurately and reliably sourced information without explanation? None of the sources you have provided have backed up your edits either. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Hollywood reporter information and the source from Sony Animation list Sony Animation. Your proposed change is unnecessary. I hav reverted it and sourced it. The onus is on you prove your proposed edit with high quality third party sources. Good day —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the sources you provided do not suppory your change. The information I added comes directly from the directors. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter source certainly does. Third party sources trump original ones. Regardless, you are just claiming that source. You didn’t provide one for your edit. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter source doesn't get anywhere close to saying who provided the animation for the film, and a journalist talking about a trailer definitely does not trump the directors of the film. And I did provide the source so i don't know what you mean there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your original research wasn’t provided in the edit nor is it here. That Hollywood Reporter article clearly says Sony Animation in the very first sentence. Perhaps you should go to the reliable source board and ask for them to explain sources to you. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not explicitly provide a source for my edit because it was already there. And you are correct that you provided a source that includes the words "Sony Animation", but it still does not say that they provided the animation for the film! - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Look bro, I’m not going to do your homework for you. You keep claiming that this mysterious source exists. All I can tell you is that you haven’t provided it. We can’t have the discussion part of BRD unless you are willing to provide your source. I’m sorry for your loss. A secondary source will always trump unsourced speculation and OR from an editor. Perhaps you should go to AN or the reliable source board. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is already in the article! I don't know how to say that in any other way! This was my edit in which I changed the wording per the source that was already there, and then I updated the lead to match. Meanwhile, your source still says nothing about who provided animation from the film. You are willfully ignoring a reliable source in favour of one that says nothing about the issue at hand! - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you really don't seem to be getting this, I'm going to try and spell this out for you very clearly. This film is a Sony film, and it is animated, so it is being made/produced by Sony Pictures Animation. That is sourced in the article. The actual animation studio that Sony Pictures Animation uses to create the animation for their films is called Sony Picture Imageworks, an animation and visual effects company. There is a source (currently #21) in the article that confirms this is the case for this film as well. In the lead of the article, we note that Sony Pictures Animation is one of the production companies in the first paragraph, and then in the second paragraph we discuss the actual animation process which is where we should mention the company that created the actual animation, which would be Sony Pictures Imageworks. I have not provided an in-line reference for the lead since that is something that we generally try to avoid, but the in-line reference can be found with the information in the article's body, specifically in the section titles "Animation". If we must have a source in the lead to satisfy you, the same in-line reference can be brought up there from the body. The reason that your Hollywood Reporter source is not helpful here is that it mentions Sony Pictures Animation in terms of it being a production company (for instance, noting that they are the studio who released the trailer) but does not mention them creating the actual animation for the film in any way, and so does not contradict our other source saying that Sony Pictures Imageworks is the one that did that. Does that all make sense? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Understanding your original research and opinion doesn’t make it not OR. I have asked you multiple times to provide the sourcing for your proposal. You seem to be refusing. Until you provide a source, the status quo edit stands. I can’t be any clearer. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(sigh) It's this one. You know, the one I just told you it was. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did it take having to ask you like 20 times before you provided it? Is the information you’re attempting to add in the YouTube video? It isn’t in the prose. If so why not just link to the time stamp? It’s not my problem to wade through this non-sense to get at what you are trying to add. —AdamF in MO (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be my problem to copy-and-paste a url from the article to the talk page for you either, but here we are... anyway, I don't know how to link to the time but it happens around 2:20 in, and here is a link to Imageworks' website to further clarify what the director's reference to "Imageworks" means, before you get all nit-picky about that as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir, it is precisely your problem to provide a citation to your proposed edits. I’m certain that as long as you have been around and as many edits that you have you understand this. I provide two, count them, high quality citations for the status quo prose, formatted them and put them in the article. It took you several comments just to provide what you have already. Other editors and the readership aren’t in your head. We don’t know what YouTube videos you’ve been watching and what websites they are embedded in.

The bottomline is if you don’t want to provide a citation for your proposal, that’s up to you, only you can decide your work flow, but then the disputed edit doesn’t go in. It is that simple.—AdamF in MO (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The citations is already in the article! How is that so difficult to understand?! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s not my job to sift through the 30+ citations in the article to provide the one perfect youtube time stamp for your edit. You are right, I don’t know why this is difficult for you to understand. If you decide to provide a citation or defend your edit, please ping me. Otherwise, your unsourced speculation will stay in the rubbish bin. Cheers —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've really tried to work with you here, but this is going nowhere. Hopefully some mediation at WP:DRN will help get this sorted. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank god, maybe they can get you to produce a citation. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97: (there should be a rule against people with similar usernames getting in disputes with each other) At the time you wrote this comment, you don't appear to have specified which source you were talking about either in an edit summary, inline (and I don't blame you for avoiding LEDECITEs, which I personally hate), or on this talk page. The first time, as far as I can see, that you specified which source you were talking about was here. However, at the time you wrote that the article looked like this, and this was citation #21. The problem with video sources is they are difficult for a lot of editors/readers to check; they are citable, but when you cite them it would be best if you provide a time in the video. The information you were referencing was not apparently seen by the interviewer/writer as important enough to include in article. I don't personally know what the difference between "Sony Pictures Imageworks" and "Sony Pictures Animation" is, if any, but having watched the whole video the interviewees do not clarify this difference and they do not, of course, say "The in-house computer animation was done by Sony Pictures Imageworks, not Sony Pictures Animation" or anything like that. Are you saying that there is no such thing as "Sony Pictures Animation" and that the correct name is "Sony Pictures Imageworks"? I am seriously confused about what you are arguing here. (And yes, I read everything you wrote on DRN; the closest you came to explaining what the dispute was was a source I had earlier added to the page included some information that I had missed and not yet added.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The difference, as far as I can tell, is that Sony Pictures Animation is basically the arm of Sony that handles animated films, but Sony Pictures Imageworks is an actual animation company. I'm pretty sure they are two separate companies. I was not aware of the involvement of Imageworks or what the difference might be before it was brought up by another user at my talk page providing this as a source for Imageworks working on the film for SPA. The Imageworks name sounded familiar, so I went back through a video I had just added to this page and saw that the directors indeed specified Imageworks when talking about the animation process for this film (that is what happens around 2:20 in the video). I updated the name in the animation section here from SPA to SPI, and would have added an additional in-line reference for the video source if it was not already at the end of the sentence that I was changing (I knew that someone looking on may mistake this for an unsourced change, which is why I said in my edit summary that the change was coming from the Collider source that had already been added). I updated the lead to match this as well. Adam's argument is that I did not provide a source for the fact that Imageworks is producing the animation for the film, and that their source trumps mine until I do. The first problem there is that their source, which can be seen above, makes no mention of the animation process on the film while mine at least mentions Imageworks in relation to the animation process. The other, bigger issue is that Adam is insisting that I have not provided a source, and since I apparently cannot prove that I have in any way I thought getting some third-party mediation would help. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no citation in that lede until I put one there. Your insistence that you put one at the end of the line in the lede is false. It is demonstrably, visually, objectively false. Everything is in the history of the page. I don’t know why you insist on making this false statement. Your communication style is frustrating to me, but you aren’t a liar. I’d suggest you spend some time figuring out why you continue to make false statements. —AdamF in MO (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

...I never said that I put a citation in the lead. That isn't something I would do let alone lie about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet you keep claiming that you put the citation at the end of the line of the edit under discussion. You have not done this. Why do you continue to assert that you have put a citation at the end of the line? Can you provide a diff of what you are talking about? You appear to be experiencing a different reality than the rest of us. --AdamF in MO (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this whole time you have been complaining because I did not put a citation in the lead? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Adam, for your benefit I'll point out that you are extremely lucky not to have been blocked for this incident already. Making strawman arguments like the above, when you have been told throughout that the problem was your failing to link the source anywhere (in an edit summary, on this talk page, on DRN...), or even specifying where in the article your source was already cited in a prompt fashion, seems like a very dangerous move, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you would make it.

@Swarm: Could you take a look at this? My first comment further up is a pretty concise summary of the problem here up to that point, and the fact that Adamstom.97 has still not stopped with this IDHT act is concerning to say the least.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• So, neither party disputes the fact that Sony Animation (SPA) is the production company behind the film, but the lede currently claims that the film was animated by "the in-house computer animation of Sony Pictures Animation". I don't see either of the provided sources actually claim or even imply that the film was animated by "in-house" animators from SPA; that appears to be an assumption based on the fact that SPA is producing the film (a pretty reasonable conclusion to make, but not supported by the sources). Next, the question is whether Adamstom's change to the lede reflected sourced information in the body of the article. It was not hard for me to confirm that it did. So, the next question is whether the source actually verifies the contested claim that Imageworks is the company behind the animation. In that source, the director refers to Imageworks when discussing the animation of the film. That seems pretty reliable, but the meaning of what he meant could be debated, or something, I guess. So, is there another way to verify the content? Well, it took me all of 2 seconds to find this article, in which Bob Osher, the divisional president who oversees both companies, directly addresses the confusion we're seeing here: "'There is a lot of back and forth,' says Osher, explaining that when SPA develops movies, it is Imageworks that actually creates the animation." Osher also explains that that SPA was specifically created to utilize the talent at Imageworks. So, it appears that Adamstom is dead-on. SPA does not use "in-house" animators, they use Imageworks, and that in fact is the primary purpose of SPA's existence. This should clear up the issue, if both parties simply examined the current sources and googled for others, rather than engaging in endless back-and-forth, this could have been very easily resolved without dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 20:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I can live with this. So we will have Adamstom’s edit with the new citation in the body. Can everyone live with that? —AdamF in MO (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Yes, but look at the date stamps of the comments where Adamstom is dead-on, look where I joined the conversation, and try finding that same "dead-on" content in any of hist multiple back-and-forth comments in this thread up to that point, in his edit summaries, or anywhere else. He was being extremely evasive regarding exactly what his problemwais (per what you wrote, "updating" has nothing to do with it), apparently deliberately so, and only stopped when he saw trouble coming; this was scarcely two days after his final warning for "uncollaborative behavior". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Text was "fixed per the source" with the original edit. Rather than simply ask where in the video that information could be found, Adamf changed it back based on his own (wrong) interpretation of sources, which is what I would describe as a good faith violation of WP:NOR. When this change was reverted on the basis of failed verification, he reverted twice per WP:BRD, which is not actually a valid reason to revert. In all fairness, the assumption that "Sony Animation" was the company that would be "animating" is a reasonable one to make, and I don't blame him for it. However, at 02:31, 28 August, Adamstom provided the diff where he directly said that he was changing the content to reflect the source. He followed that up by clearly explaining that the animation company was not necessarily the same as the production company, and that source #21 confirmed Imageworks as the former, whereas Adamf's sources, though confirming the latter, did not. This was a key moment in the discussion, and one I was able to follow (and confirm) without any difficulty at all. That should have been the end of it, but instead, Adamf, apparently ignoring everything Adamstom said, accused Adamstom of "refusing to provide a source". When Adamstom finally provided the link to the source, which was already in the article and which he had directly referred to, and even provided the timestamp, Adamf continued to ignore it, saying "if you don’t want to provide a citation for your proposal ... then the disputed edit doesn’t go in" and "If you decide to provide a citation or defend your edit, please ping me. Otherwise, your unsourced speculation will stay in the rubbish bin" and "Oh thank god, maybe they can get you to produce a citation". The whole time, Adamstom was correct, the citation, a video of the director referring to Imageworks as the animation company, was already in the article, and all he had done was change incorrect information to reflect the citation it was already sourced to. Adamf, for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever, repeatedly and persistently obstructed this edit, and at no point even extended Adamstom enough benefit of the doubt to consider his position. If you want to get into behavioral assessments, Adamf exhibited some of the same behaviors of blind obstructionism and inability to collaborate that got Adamstom in hot water at Ant-man and the Wasp. In that regard, he got a well-deserved taste of his own medicine, but in this scenario, I would tend towards viewing Adamf as the aggressor and Adamstom the victim. I recognize entirely that Adamf was coming from a place of good faith misunderstanding, and that Adamstom could have been more forthcoming with what, precisely, the source was, as well as additional sources, which could have easily been found. Still, he was fundamentally the one in the wrong here, and if his shortcomings in this discussion are forgivable, then so are Adamstoms. Swarm ♠ 02:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I didn’t even know what video he was even talking about until I had asked him 6, count them, times. Your statement that I “changed it back” is in error. But the rest of your criticisms are most likely accurate and I’ll thoughtfully consider them. —AdamF in MO (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to everyone for seemingly abandoning this discussion, I just had some real world issues to deal with. Now that I am back I thank Swarm for their neutral assessment and Adamfinmo for their apology at my talk page. I'll go ahead and restore the lead since we seem to all agree that the content is in fact sourced in the article. If the SPA/SPI confusion continues in the future then we can discuss adding a citation to the lead per WP:LEADCITE. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic home page statement

Can we use this: The website also stated, "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a weird, wonderful, animated take on the comics." or is it just trivial? Sebastian James (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this a new feature? If so, and it is on par with RT's consensus statement then perhaps it should be discussed at a more central location such as Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Possible billing block?

So I recently found a press release from October regarding Post Malone & Swae Lee's Sunflower song, and in the "About Spider-Man™: Into the Spider-Verse" section, a possible cast order may have been revealed. Last month (and a month after that press release, for that matter), I found a trailer for the film's Chinese release with the same listing, which was also found on Sony Pictures' website for the film. The cast listing is as follows:

• Shameik Moore
• Jake Johnson
• Hailee Steinfeld
• Mahershala Ali
• Brian Tyree Henry
• Luna Lauren Vélez
• Lily Tomlin
• John Mulaney
• with Nicolas Cage
• and Liev Schreiber

So could this be the possible billing block for the film? IceWalrus236 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I am still concerned that the two official websites have different cast listings though. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DJordan18 if you want to suggest using a different billing block then please discuss it here. The article uses the billing block from the official website which is easy to WP:VERIFY and there is a comment in the wiki markup to explain. I don't think it is a good idea to use another billing block that is more difficult to verify. -- 109.76.241.233 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:109.76.241.233 The difference between the billing blocks at sonypictures.com and sonypicturespublicity.com is the addition of Zoë Kravitz (after Luna list) and Kathryn Hahn (after Nicolas Cage) on sonypictures.com. Both of these appear in the "PRESS KIT\Credits" on sonypictuespublicity. So I'd advocate for including both names. -- SethT (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is people ignoring the comment and changing the list so it didn't match what the comment said it was supposed to be. It if is explained clearly and done properly, I wont need to revert it. -- 109.76.241.233 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Once more and yet again I had to revert the same change. If there was any consensus to change the list and include Kathryn Hahn, there must also be a change to the comment that says the list is based on the credits on the website. -- 109.79.85.121 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

People still come around and try to change the billing block[1] but fail to update the hidden comment to specify which billing block the list is supposed to match. It was reverted in any case. -- 109.76.197.94 (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Was the film inspired by the story arc "Spider-Verse" (2014)?

Hi. Was the film inspired by the story arc "Spider-Verse" (2014)? If so, should this be mentioned in the lead? New9374 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the story borrow elements from the 2014 "Spider-Verse" comic book storyline? Or is it a direct adaption? And should this be mentioned in the lead? New9374 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Borrows is a good way to put it. This film is largely the Miles Morales Ultimate Spider-Man story, at its core, with the Spider-Verse cross-over thrown into it for extra yuks. So I'd say the link to Spider-Verse comic run is indirect and best not to highlight it. -- 109.79.184.216 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another editor pointed to the comic Spider-Men as a plot source, which seems plausible, but did not include any reliable sources to support the claim.[2] I know it seems obvious but without reliable sources it is original research WP:OR. I'd love to include this in the Production/Writing section if anyone can find reliable sources that directly attribute story elements to particular comics. Despite this having been already classed a "Good Article" the writing section managed to jump to discussing the animatics without actually having discussed the story or script in any detail. -- 109.76.147.128 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Was Morbius in this film?

The Kingpin had a sidekick very similar in appearance to the pale-skinned vampire we've gotten to know from the Fox Kids animated series... but it would be original research for me to add this to the article, I think, since I can't easily find sources to support it. Does anyone know the presumed identity of this sidekick? He had a clash with Dr Octavius near the midpoint of the film. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The pale skinned character you might be thinking of is Tombstone. It was definitely not Morbius--Fradio71 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Critical response

In general I'm okay with the idea of including notable responses from people other than professional film critics but I think this article might be giving too much weight to non-notable commentators. Comments such as those from director Kevin Smith, who regularly reviews films, and has a podcast about movies and superheroes make a certain amount of sense. Comments from Tom Holland who currently plays the live action version of Spider-Man are interesting and makes a certain amount of sense, but maybe aren't quite as notable or as insightful as they might be. It is not clear why Patton Oswalt is relevant to this article, or notable. The initial praise from Barry Jenkins might be notable, but it seems unnecessary to include the response and follow up comments from Peter Ramsey, it feels a bit too much like thread mode and I suggest shortening it substantially. -- 109.79.176.189 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia concept of notability should never (or rarely)be used to argue for or against including content in an article or list. It only muddles the issue with policy rules that are explicitly, in the very policy being cited, inapplicable. It’s right at the very top of WP:Notability, because it is such a problem that “not notable” is given as a reason to remove content. Similarly, whether or not someone is a recognized expert or qualified as a reliable defined by WP:RS, has nothing to do with that source is also notable.

What does matter is WP:Content policy, and probably the strongest reason to remove verifiable facts is WP:WEIGHT. If we had a mainstream view that the movie was terrible and a few celebrities that loved it, we wouldn’t want to create false balance between the majority and an obscure minority’s opinion. But all these opinions agree! We aren’t at risk of elevating an opinion that’s out of left field or fringe. And like Smith, Oswalt isn’t obscure in comic, sci-fi or fantasy media. He’s considered an important and influential voice in comics criticism/fandom.

If this article were too long, or regular film critics were woefully underrepresented, that would be a reason, at least until those issues were addressed. The only other real reason to leave out these non-film critics is if consensus favors it. Maybe local consensus is that we just don’t like it. I think the opinions of peers — actors, writers, directors — are important. What an athlete’s fellow players say carries weight in a way that’s important and distinct from what sportscasters or sportswriters say. And awards like the Oscars are voted on by film industry peers, not critics. So that alone tells us that what they say about a film carries weight. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oswalt makes regular film criticism? Hmm. I don't dislike the guy but I still am not convinced his opinion is relevant here.

I looked at Black Panther (film) and expected to see some similar celebrity endorsement but did not. That article has a more general section about "Cultural importance" maybe this article could have a separate section that would accommodate other more general commentary without putting undue weight on non-critics in the critical response section. I'm not in any hurry to delete anything but I think more structure is better and I don't think we should let things ossify. I expect this will be very popular article that gradually changes and becomes a featured article, later if not sooner. -- 109.79.176.189 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you know who Patton Oswalt is? Have you looked at Patton Oswalt#Comics? He writes comics. He has voice acted in animated feature films like Teen Titans Go! To the Movies and Ratatouille, and numerous TV cartoons. As I said, artists' peers can matter as much as professional critics. When he talks about this Spider-Man movie, he speaks from experience, having worked in this exact medium, in this exact genre. Oswalt wrote a book about film called Silver Screen Fiend: Learning About Life from an Addiction to Film. He wrote an influential article on comics and pop culture called Wake Up, Geek Culture. Time to Die. And so on and on and on. I don't know why you use the term "celebrity endorsement". He's an expert, and a recognized critic and analyst of several categories of media that this film is in.

The GA you mentioned, Black Panther (film), is filled with commentary by non-film critics from many fields, mostly academics. Featured Articles like Tank Girl (film) or Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) have non-film critic opinions. The FA Dredd quotes the original creator of Judge Dredd for his opinion. There are many examples of Wikipedia's best film articles that don't restrict themselves to only film critic reactions, and that consider experts in other fields, or peers of the creators, to be relevant.

I don't think you have anything close to an argument here. If anything, we're likely to see more commentary by scholars, historians, cultural critics, and various kinds of artists, and like Black Panther, they will be added to this article on Into the Spider-Verse, particularly if it becomes a Featured Article. Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) has a lot of this commentary outside the reaction section, in Themes and Legacy and impact. It would make sense to move content to new sections, espeically since the Critical response section is growing quite long. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The article should make it clearer why any of these people are notable, readers shouldn't need to guess. The comments from Oswalt were taken direct from Twitter (enough to verify the comments), they weren't repeated by other news sources (which might have helped indicate notability). I was aware of Oswalt as a comedian and actor (and the sad death of his wife), I was not aware was a frequent writer, or that he voiced Uncle Ben. Readers shouldn't need to go off and read all about Oswalt for his comments here to have proper context. The other people mentioned in the section have context.

Lets move on to what we seem to agree on, putting this into a separate section. Any suggestions on a subheading? -- 109.79.68.146 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is all broadly audience response but I think subheading is better used for response from the general public (so long as they can be shown to be notable and verifiable.) As you have commented this is literally "Peer response" but perhaps "Industry response" might be an appropriate subsection title. -- 109.77.206.4 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

List Cruft

No one seems willing or able to explain how any article could possibly need 10 WP:NAVBOXes. (Editors show by their actions that they know most of these Navboxes are basically useless, they're hidden by default and buried inside sub boxes.) I encourage editors to at least WP:SPLITLIST and create a separate article List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse where the Awards Naboxes would be slightly less pointless. -- 109.79.78.129 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

11? Seriously? -- 109.79.78.129 (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

4 should be more than enough. The Harry Potter films are full of fancruft but even they manage to show some restraint and not add so many of these unnecessary link dumpsters that are mostly hidden anyway. -- 109.76.129.153 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty standard for films that win many awards (and more so for films that sweep the awards circuit) and hence why we group all the awards one together. WP:NAVBOX says nothing about arbitrarily putting a limit on the number of navigation templates just because you think 10 is too much. All the ones removed here respect WP:FILMNAV. - Brojam (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So far I've only heard the other articles do this argument, and points that the guidelines dont prevent this but no argument that these Navoboxes are necessary or good. They aren't good, hiding them by default is an overt admission, and adding them is WP:UNDUE. The guidelines - as usual - can be interpreted in different and entirely contradictory ways. "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." That's clear as mud, and can easily be read both ways. The guidelines make many more points about coherent, and relevance, that can be read either way too.

You see Navboxes as useful, I see them as a dumpster of pointless links, an extreme case of pointless WP:OVERLINK. Why do editors deliberately hide them by default if they are so useful? They're a nicely formatted "See Also" section, but they don't get aggressively deleted like See also sections.

Again I encourage you or anyone else to feel free to split the Awards off into a separate article and add as many Awards Navboxes and other list cruft as you like to a list article. -- 109.78.217.150 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Here it is List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, feel free to edit. - Gellerman (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

you can help with that https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4633694/awards. - Gellerman (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I'm not a fan of list cruft and I find editing table markup painfully boring but I've made a few changes that I hope are improvements. If bored I might take another look and try add any Winner that might have been missed from the list article.

With the table gone it might be worth slightly expanding the WP:PROSE in the Accolades section of this article. -- 109.76.211.117 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes added again. No attempt was made by the person who actually added them to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and give any reason at all why they were a good idea. Navboxes are as bad as "See also" sections and should not get a free pass. They are pointless bloat, nothing but nicely formatted list cruft. Save it for the List articles. -- 109.79.180.13 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the navboxes should be added to the main article since the links for the film lead exactly there. IceWalrus236 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Including a few of the most relevant Navboxes is not unreasonable. Including more than five seems unnecessary, and irrelevant. Eleven Navboxes was ridiculous and unreasonable, immediately sub-boxing and hiding them only emphasized how irrelevant and unnecessary they were. We don't include every possible genre a film could theoretically be included, we shouldn't indiscriminately include every possible Navbox either. -- 109.78.235.236 (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is crazy. We don't include every genre possible. We shouldn't include every possible Navbox either, and there is no requirement (or benefit) to doing so. To suggest this junk is worth include and then hide it below yet another layer of grouped Navboxes is insane.

A few of the most relevant is reasonable, any more than that is silly. We wouldn't accept any of this junk in WP:SEEALSO or WP:EL. -- 109.79.77.104 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Inexplicably not only do Navboxes not only fail to take into account MOS:DONTHIDE, they sub-sub-hide {{Navboxes}}. Again the guidelines say "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." -- 109.77.252.211 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Once more and yet again I can understand include a few relevant Navboxes in an article, but even 5 Navboxes seems like more than just the most relevant. Recent edits pushed the total number of navboxes to an even more unnecessary total of 13 navboxes, 8 of which were immediately hidden. (Do tell me how something is worth included but also immediately hiding?) Still no attempt to made to explain why any of this is necessary or good. -- 109.79.69.116 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally agree, but it's clear that over the course of almost a year, not many people are interested in discussing this. If navboxes are added or removed, people probably just don't care as much as you obviously do. I think they're unnecessary, but I'm not going to make a mission of removing them anytime another user adds them. It seems that you've taken that upon yourself, so thank you there.

Are you looking for a consensus that agrees with you, or are you just looking to explain your edits in more detail than the edit summary? Because even if you get consensus that only the current Navbox list as of today is sufficient, what then? This page is currently unprotected, and people are still going to add them back in not even knowing that a consensus exists (assuming IP users). I guess you could argue that an IP savvy enough to use Navboxes and hide them should probably be checking the Talk page, but as long as this remains unprotected, you're going to run the risk of WP:ICANTHEARYOU from IP edits. So even if there is consensus here, you will still need to take the onus of removing them (unless you're hoping other page watchers take upholding said consensus upon themselves as well)... -2pou (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Having someone say they agree or at least acknowledge that I am not being unreasonable is helpful.

I don't think the principle of relevance is a big ask, but I wouldn't burden other editors with the task either. I will continue to ask that editors follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide an edit summary explaining their changes. I don't think expecting people to follow WP:BRD and discuss is unfair, especially since the documentation says Navboxes are "neither required nor prohibited", not that you'd know from the way people add them indiscriminately. I think many editors are in good faith copying bad habits (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).

If anon editors don't want to play fair, I know enough of the rules and processes to get the page locked (even if it means locking myself out) or users blocked but I hope that wont be needed. I will probably continue to revisit the article and trim back the cruft intermittently, maybe policies will change or maybe I'll move on to better things. Thanks for reading. -- 109.79.69.116 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed hidden junk again.[3] see above. TLDR: WP:NAVBOX "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." -- 109.79.91.51 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

While checking the discussion archives I notice someone decided to complain to Project Film about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_72#IP_ruling_the_roost_on_Navbox_policy_at_Spider-Man:_Into_the_Spider-Verse
As I have repeatedly explained "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article" WP:NAVBOX. -- 109.76.137.180 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I must again ask why anyone thinks adding 14 navboxes (in addition to the 5 already included) is a good idea.[4] Please read or reread the above discussion, I have, nothing has changed. This is still excessive and unnecessary and there still does not appear to be any good reason to include so many irrelevant Navboxes even if other articles do it.
TLDR WP:NAVBOX: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article" -- 109.77.199.80 (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Only a few days later, someone else thought it was a good idea add more Navboxes, 15 this time,[5] and with not-so-much as an edit summary to describe the changes, or give any explanation or reason why it might be necessary. Wikipedia is supposed to be about prose and notable information, not hidden tables full of irrelevant links. If you must add hidden awards navboxes there's a whole separate article better suited to lists: List_of_accolades_received_by_Spider-Man:_Into_the_Spider-Verse. -- 109.76.202.85 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well slap me in the face and call me Bloaty McBloatface, someone thought it was a good idea to add 16 hidden navboxes.[6] without even an edit summary to explain. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it is still pointless bloat.)-- 109.76.128.149 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to the good faith edit by User:Facu-el_Millo [7] the page List_of_accolades_received_by_Spider-Man:_Into_the_Spider-Verse includes all the information relevant to Awards won by this film, including all the navboxes. WP:NAVBOX "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article" but it does not give useful recommendations about relevance or quantity. What is the point of adding so many Navboxes and not even showing their contents? (MOS:DONTHIDE) If you add one Awards Navbox, even for the Academy Awards, where do you stop? How many Navboxes is too many? -- 109.76.137.231 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another editor adding yet another hidden table of irrelevant links without any explanation.[8] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not an excuse. Adding one wouldn't be so bad if we could remove another. WP:NAVBOX still says "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article". Discuss. -- 109.76.203.156 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

More navboxes

More navboxes added[9] but at least this time the editor was making a good faith effort to follow the deeply flawed guidelines of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that is a very particular part of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. There is a very bad case of circular logic in that guideline, Navboxes must include the link, and therefore the page must include the navbox. There are larger discussions about it that were never resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_7#Bidirectional_navboxes?

In any case, even if you don't believe that guideline is severly flawed, there is nothing to suggest that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL takes precendence over all the other parts of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines particuarly "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article" and "is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

If editors could please explain why they believe more Navboxes are necessary or relevant? Why for example is there is any need to include more than one table of links about Sony? Why hide/collapse the navbox if it is worth including at all? What limit if any do you think is appropriate, how many more Navboxes is enough? -- 109.77.198.222 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors keep adding large numbers of hidden tables.[10] Why are any of these necessary. How are they relevant. What limit if any will you put on them? How many times do we need to repeat the same redundant information in and why is it immediately hidden if it is worth including in the first place. -- 109.79.73.178 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous comment

For various reasons I don't think it is a good idea to include the comment of an anonymous Oscar voter [11] in the Critical response or Industry response section. All the other comments come from named people with some degree of relevance to this film or Spider-Man (see above discussion asking about notability of Patton Oswalt). I agree with it being removed [12] from that section but could possibly understand putting it elsewhere, perhaps if we had more details about the Oscar campaign in the Accolades section. - 109.79.78.129 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For me, the piercing question is "Why that anonymous person above any other documented anonymous voters?"--Fradio71 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Because this one is quoted in a reliable source and others aren't. If they were, their opinions would also be relevant and potentially citeable.

I don't agree that it would be more appropriate for a Oscar campaign section. To me such a section is for discussing a film with an unusual campaign. Roma and Shakespeare in Love would be examples, although neither has such a section currently. (Maybe that means having such a section would be against consensus; I wonder what WP:FILM discussions say.) In any case, as things currently stand, the industry section is appropriate for quotes from an Oscar voter. Ylee (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Being mentioned in a reliable source doesn't mean that it needs to go in an encyclopaedia article. Unless other sources start talking about it in the same way, right now it's just trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And for that matter, why would a random unreliable source bother talking about anonymous Oscar voters? Who would go out of their way to manufacture quotes from those people? It's not a common thing for Oscar voters to be spoken to…at least, as anonymous Oscar voters instead of openly in their positions in the industry anyway--Fradio71 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In response Ylee, my point was that it is wrong to add it to that section, I was being polite by suggesting there might be somewhere else it could go.

I argued above that it there wasn't a clear reason to include comments from just any celebrity in the Critical response section (and it turns out Patton Oswalt isn't just any celebrity, he has relevant ties Spider-Man). Having already made that point that not just any celebrity is relevant, it is almost impossible to show the relevance of this anonymous comment. Also the Academy consists of approximately 5,800 voters, it would be difficult enough to say this particular voter is of any relevance either.

The quote did make an interesting reference to Shrek but if we want an excuse to mention Shrek we can probably do that by pointing out that SM:ItSV is one of the few non-Disney films to win the award. (Edit: articles counts Disney/Pixar and Ghibli films distributed by Disney in the US as Disney to make their point but YMMV.) -- 109.76.198.249 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's an award that's existed for 18 ceremonies that has had 6 non-Disney winners, each of a different studio--Fradio71 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Analysis and Themes

An anonymous reader started a section for Analysis and Themes particularly the queer interpretation of the film.

Special:Contributions/129.110.241.76 please note that the blog source used in the Analysis and Themes section may not be an acceptable source because of WP:UGC and WP:SELFPUB. The Washington Post source seems adequate.

I urge caution because people can project their own ideas onto any story, and coming of age stories make certain interpretations even easier. I think this section needs to first outline the general themes (coming of age story for starters) before getting into one particular (queer) interpretation, to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight. -- 109.76.239.128 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Land of the Nerds is not reliable to use here. The article in The Washington Post is reliable. A "Social commentary" section can be written up combining such commentary. Such a section exists at Edge of Tomorrow#Social commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was going to give it a chance, but another editor deleted it entirely because it used a blog source, which I warned might be a problem and there are other problems too. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, with a neutral point of view, so any claim that something has been "widely praised" is either hyperbole or needs to be well supported by multiple sources (but as as rule you shouldn't make those kinds of claims). The second source (Washington Post) isn't too bad though but it is still very subjective. Note the WP article mostly used the term queer, which is clear and easy to read, so it makes more sense to use that term than needlessly rephrasing it to use the more technical term LGBTQIA+. -- 109.76.239.128 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes if there's only one such article rather than a trend it might be included in the Critical response section but the author of the Washington Post article doesn't seem to be a film critic so that wont work, and he doesn't seem to be a regularly published columnist either: http://google.com/?q=Andrew+Kahn+site%3Awashingtonpost.com

As I mentioned before I accept that anyone can project their own stories on to something, but also I have concerns about cultural appropriation. At the time of writing this article barely mentions the cultural significance of Miles Morales, a Black Latino Spider-Man. Remember they started making this before the huge success of Black Panther (film). It seems WP:UNDUE to emphasize a particular interpretation, without also mentioning others, so care needs to be taken to not allow the article to become unbalanced.

I'm feeling cautious because the article already has a fair amount of opinion and commentary for an article of this size. The article could be improved by significantly more facts about production information and details the animation and art styles in particular, and by expanding the article overall makes more room for different insights. -- 109.76.239.128 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Social commentary section, yes! Great idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.76 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I found another version of the Land of the Nerds article on The-Solute, this might be more reputable and useable for the Social Commentary section? http://www.the-solute.com/how-spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-captures-intimate-parts-of-the-lgbtqa-experience/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.76 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Solute reprinting it doesn't make it any better unfortunately. The Solute doesn't seem to be anything more than a blogging group or platform. -- 109.76.239.128 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Technology or VFX

There was previously a technology section in the article. It wasn't very good and read a bit like an advertisement so I couldn't really object when it was removed (I nearly removed it myself when it was first added) but I still wanted to make a note of it here in case anyone might try to later add a section expanding the information about the technology or VFX or details of the further development details that might be appropriate to mention. -- 109.79.163.125 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Popularity on Wikipedia

Currently, the Accolades section ends with a sentence about the movie being the 2nd most-viewed Wikipedia article for December 2018. This is neither an accolade nor notable enough to include in the article. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I deleted that pretty quickly, on the basis that it wasn't any kind of award. There are probably many other reasons to delete it, but most of all I think it is extremely self indulgent to add statistics about wikipedia to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about a film. -- 109.79.177.91 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

J. Jonah Jameson

There seems to be some disagreement about who played J. Jonah Jameson, and there seems to be a slow edit war about it. This change has been reverted before so I reverted it again and I am asking people to please explain the situation clearly and try to discuss it and reach a consensus before making further changes.

Please also follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary, it helps to show WP:GOODFAITH. -- 109.76.208.49 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling you, it was confirmed by the editor of the movie itself! Andy Levitton has a twitter and he said who did the voices. --75.99.18.219 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is not an ideal source, neither is Uproxx. (IMDB isn't a good source either but it does list Adam Brown as having played JJJ.) They might be enough if there wasn't a contradictory source, CBR mentions JJJ and says "Lee also voiced The Daily Bugle editor in this sequence", I guess it is possible to read that to mean someone else voiced JJJ but that Stan also voiced him for that scene only, or that they had Brown first and had Lee replace him later. Can anyone check the end credits on the Bluray or DVD, or maybe there are other sources that could make this clearer? (The credits provided by the presskit only say that Stan was played by Stan Lee, and Adam Brown is credited under "Additional voices" so nothing conclusive there.)

Also the edit was unclear and confusing and should have included a proper edit summary to explain the change, and sources, so I'm not surprised it was reverted. It is also weird to read "Editorial APM Adam Brown". What is that supposed to mean? The Uproxx article merely refers to "voice actor Adam Brown". The twitter message and some searching suggest that Adam Brown was crew on the film on the Editorial team as Assistant Production Manager maybe??? Even if that is correct, it is not clear why his job title is relevant here, and readers of an encyclopedia article should never need to try figure out what that unexplained acronym was supposed to mean. Again I'm not surprised it was reverted.

In short, how do you explain the contradictory source, got any better sources? -- 109.76.219.40 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I should like to ask where this article got its source from? Did they actually ask the crew members? Is CBR itself an "ideal source"? That's what I'm trying to say. --75.99.18.219 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You can make the argument that CBR is not a good enough source in this case either, but you still need better sources to support your changes. (Warning against using Twitter). It is more likely we revert WP:STATUSQUO or remove any mention of JJJ. I checked the film itself and in the end credits Adam Brown is again only credited under additional voices. It is hard to say this detail is notable when it is not properly credited. Fact is were talking about one line in a post credits scene where JJJ says ""Spider-Man pointed first obviously". I found the clip of JJJ and listening to it on its own [13] admittedly it doesn't sound much like Stan Lee. At this point I'm leaning towards removing it entirely. Ask User:Wallyfromdilbert to comment, he reverted you first, maybe you can convince him. -- 109.79.176.137 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the about page for CBR, the editorial oversight is unclear, but the article does go into a decent amount of depth. A later Syfy website article also has similar information as the CBR article ("let's not forget his 'voice cameo' during the post-credits scene where he portrays the J. Jonah Jameson of Earth-67." [14][15]). However, I don't think that Leviton's Twitter is reliable enough to use for the article. He was involved in animation and not sound, and only says he was cast. They could have subsequently replaced his voice with Stan Lee, which would not be surprising, especially given the explanation in the CBR article. I favor keeping the article as it is unless a more reliable source than the Twitter post could be found, but I would not object to removing the entire mention of it from the article until the issue is made clearer. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you might have meant to link to this SyFy article [16]. Thanks for your comment. I haven't decided about deletion yet. -- 109.79.176.137 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, thank you for the correct link. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To err on the side of caution, I have removed the claim that Stan Lee voiced JJJ for now. I'd like to keep it but as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia I think it is better to leave out uncertain information even if it is sourced. -- 109.79.170.186 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone again attempted to add this same poorly phrased text, without any explanation, without reopening this discussion, and without any source, so I reverted the changes. Nothing has changed, we still have a reliable source claiming that Stan Lee voiced JJJ. We still do not have a reliable source saying otherwise. -- 109.79.176.51 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

And again, this editor is WP:NOTLISTENING. -- 109.76.154.143 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

And again. Still WP:NOTLISTENING, still inadequately sourced, and poorly worded. -- 109.77.215.39 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Back at it again. [17] -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the information. I think that is all we can do since they keep switching to new IPs. It doesn't seem frequent enough for page protection. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reassuring me that I am not being unreasonable to continue reverting this. This change is not only badly phrased and confusing it is also poorly sourced and the editor refuses to discuss. It needs better sources and better writing.

Administrators can ban not just one IP address but whole range, if you put /64 in after an IPv6 user address you can see edits from that sub range of IP addresses Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:5846:E800:65E8:C869:28AE:872A/64 and the pattern becomes clearer. Also I'm a little bit reluctant and very lazy about going through the process of trying to get anyone blocked from editing. -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

JJJ was voiced by Stan Lee! I hear closer and I can hear Stan Lee's voice It was him Which source is reliable and Twitter is reliable because there are real actors and actress there!

So He was voiced by Stan Lee Kohcohf (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Twitter is reliable" ... no, no it is not reliable. WP:RSPSOURCES states that Twitter should only be used for "used for an uncontroversial self-description"

We don't have enough information. (Even in that Twitter thread we have someone asking "Wait, it wasn't @TheRealStanLee who did JJJ?"[18] but Leviton did not answer the question.) -- 109.76.154.4 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Stan Lee voiced JJJ has been removed agian[19] although I haven't tracked down who sneaked it back into the article without any sources (not even the unreliable sources discussed above). -- 109.77.207.91 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Short title

An anonymous editor recently made a good faith change along with several other misguided changes. The edit shortened the film title from "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" to "Into the Spider-Verse" (see an older version of the article mostly using the shortened title). The other changes I had to revert but this change might be an improvement, I think it might have helped improved readability. I do think we need to check the rules and also make sure other editors agree it is a good idea before making such a change, so does anyone have any opinion on it? -- 109.76.141.124 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)