Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 26 March 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. Although guidelines favor lowercase prepositions, this is occasionally put aside where the capitalized form appears to be the common name, or recognized as the official name. Here, a sufficient argument has been made that the current title merits such an exception that a substantially clearer consensus would be required to move the page than what has been established here. bd2412 T 03:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home → Spider-Man: Far from Home – Very straightforward MOS:CAPTITLE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 16:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, per common name, and per the title used in references: Sources used on the page uniformly put 'From' in upper-case. This is similar to the Four past Midnight debacle, where nobody but Wikipedia lower-cases 'past'. Wikipedia is the world's best, and slowly-but-surely becoming the world's most trusted, encyclopedia as people use it and don't find as many mistakes as they think they will. If such a major film is misnamed when they come here to read about it, 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 it fits the five-tier titling criteria and Wikipedia's page on it should reflect what the rest of the world is calling it. (similar to the last RM, nothing has changed except that now many more sources upper-case 'From', the correct title form). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. They are the same name as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, and we don't necessarily use WP:OFFICIAL titles anyway. We often agree on capitalization questions, but caps are controlled by the manual of style, which says to always use lowercase for short prepositions. If a film is titled using inconsistent and improper title case, that could "potentially harm the subtle and delicate reputation of Wikipedia." There aren't any cases in which either our style guide or other major style guides would put "from" in caps here. Dekimasuよ! 17:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note also that the other move request closed as "no consensus," so it is fine to revisit the issue here. Dekimasuよ! 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• The MOS point you refer to is a guideline, not policy. 'From' is four-letters, not short by the standard of most manual of styles (Wikipedia's rare five-letter guideline is fine in most cases, but when there are no sources which use the lower-cased four-letter word - which speaks to the decisions and judgments of other style guides - then this seems to be an allowable common sense exception). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, this has already been discussed and we have agreed to leave it as is. Voicebox64 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• The last discussion found no consensus, not a decision to leave the title as it is. Dekimasuよ! 20:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nothing new since the last discussion. MOS:CAPTITLE needs to change to a "four-letter rule" so that it agrees with more of the how the real world names things. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:TITLETM "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." So even if we agree the five-letter rule is correct, our policy on article titles says we can ignore it and use the style preferred by reliable sources. In this case, its the current title. Calidum 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• It’s not a trademark. 210.138.178.65 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - that may technically be correct per Wikipedia's rules, but it is pedantic and silly when this is obviously the common form used and expected. There also doesn't appear to be any new argument for the change since the last discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The posters all have "From" capitalised and I see no reason for the name to be changed. ARZ100 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. We should be going according to policy, not by the whims of whatever graphic designer created the poster.—Chowbok ☠ 01:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I kind of doubt that Columbia and Marvel would budget a few hundred million dollars on production and marketing and then tell the graphic designer "You know what, you name the thing whatever you want, surprise us." Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CT. What's the use of a style manual if it's not being followed? Darkday (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: WP:COMMONNAME is for determining the appropriate name/spelling. For determining the case, we have MOS:CAPTITLE which instruct us to use lower-case for prepositions.--Let There Be Sunshine 13:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Artists, creators, producers decide what to call their work.Djflem (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No, they don't. If you name your book Chicken-headed Monsters from Venus Among Us (following the five-letter preposition rule, and the rule to not capitalize after a hyphen except for a proper name as in "post-Soviet"), anyone following the AP Stylebook (e.g. almost all North American journalism, including book reviews) will render this Chicken-Headed Monsters From Venus Among Us (note both "Headed" and "From") because of their four-letter rule and lack of the hyphen rule. Anyone following the Chicago Manual of Style, Scientific Style and Format, and numerous other academic style guides (used also by literature and other humanities journals and their book reviews) will render it Chicken-headed Monsters from Venus among Us, following their no-prepositions-capitalized rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Tell ee cummings that is 5 is wrong.Djflem (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons expressed above. MOS should explicitly permit the title of a work exactly as it is used by a significant majority of current, reliable sources, even if it conflicts with MOS capitalization policy. Jmar67 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons expressed above. This is Star Trek Into Darkness all over again. --Bold Clone 15:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. We have a style guide for a reason. Almost all references to this in sources are in entertainment journalism, most of which follows the AP Stylebook or various British news style sheets (all of which, like AP, have a four-letter rule for capitalization of prepositions in titles). WP uses the five-letter rule (MOS:5LETTER), and is not written in news style, as a matter of policy. Academic journals typically follow a third rule, capitalizing no preps in titles at all, not even long ones like "alongside" and "throughout". Thus "the sources mostly use 'From'" is meaningless pseudo-sourcing. What you're really saying is "AP Stylebook uses 'From'"; you're observing a stylistic preference that adheres to a particular kind of writing, not a particular subject. The same film written about in an academic film journal will be given with "from" not "From", following that publication style. WP sets its own standards for how to write an encyclopedia, from style trivia like this, to what is a reliable secondary source under what conditions, and what constitutes neutral phrasing and due inclusion. No external authority dictates answers this these questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 2 April 2019 (UT

• If every source upper-cases 'From' (or almost every source, although where are the lower-case examples?) and Wikipedia doesn't, does "follow the sources" mean anything at all? The film isn't out yet, so the major sources are still to come. But until lower-case at least has something to back it up outside of a increasingly unpopular "this-way-every-time" guideline (which obviously doesn't guide correctly, in this case or in the case of Four past Midnight which I think is still seeking its first lower-cased source) then leaving this page as it is seems the common sense route. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• "follow the sources" means we use what they say, not how they say it. I've seen several sources that express the title in all caps. Should we do that, too? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Just as an aside, I have often thought that a lowercase word that stands alone in a series of uppercase words in a title deserves to be capitalized if it looks better that way. One example that comes to mind is You Can't Take It with You, which looks terrible to me. I've never seen this discussed, however. Jmar67 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  Jmar67, for what it's worth, Britannica uses lowercase "with" when using this title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. When a particular styling enjoys heavy predominance in sources, as this one does, we go with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The trailers, posters and other marketing materials clearly say "Far From Home", both F's are capitalized. It does not make sense to change the wiki page to "Far from Home", in any way. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Every publication has its in-house style to follow. WP:MOS is ours. Nardog (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS. The styling in the logo doesn't matter - if it did, articles for the Iron Man films would be in all caps. Since no one's pushing for that, the ones referring to the logo here are cherry picking. Reliable sources are likewise useless, because there's not a disagreement about what the title is, just how to format it. Their use of a capital f only means they use a different style guide, not that a capital f is correct. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, let's get rid of these pesky old-school sourcing rules. Just like with Four past Midnight, it makes not a bit of difference if each and every source in the world upper-cases a word, Wikipedia will show them the real way to do it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Which source rule says we should follow their lead on italics, capitalization, bolding, and other stylization choices? Point me to it, and I'll gladly change my opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per MOS. Far from Home is a disambiguation page that shows two other films also called "Far from Home" with "from" being lowercase, along with pretty much every other example. The BFI database shows the two other films with "Far from Home" too, so it is simply a house-style practice. There is no reason for this film to be exceptional. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JOEBRO64 19:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:MOSCAPS. Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 09:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:TITLECAPS. MOS:TITLECAPS and COMMONNAME are not mutually exclusive here. If the title was styled as SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME that would still be the common name, but we would still style it as Spider-Man: Far from Home. It is not uncommon for works to style titles using a capital letter at the start of every word but the MOS is crystal clear that Wikipedia uses title case. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Betty Logan, the MOS is also clear Wikipedia bases things on sources. There is no source that lower-cases 'From' in this title. Wikipedia would be the only one (See also: Four past Midnight, another no-source name) to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  As far as COMMONAME goes I do not see any factual distinction between "far from home", "FAR FROM HOME", "Far From Home" and "Far from Home". This is a MOS issue not a verifiability issue. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• To many editors the issue is real-name and pretend-name. If Wikipedia is the only place on the internet or in print media using the pretend name, that arguably makes the encyclopedia look incorrect (which it would be, again, per Four past Midnight). I always err on the side of 100%. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin please see this potential canvassing [1] and note the sudden change in the vote after it was posted. Calidum 18:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  A notification was also posted at WT:FILM by an editor in favor of retaining the current title. Both notifications were neutral so I don't see it is a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Alerting Wikiprojects to an RM is standard, but the link that Calidum provided is to a MOS page which has set-up a canvassing section, a section with instructions to keep it at the top. I don't think this is standard, and may be unique, and it arguably tends to attract firm-MOS-compliant editors (even if the guideline language asks for common sense exceptions, like, you'd think, 100% of the sources upper casing 'From'). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't seen a section exactly like that, but most project pages I've visited have some sort of a notice board. WT:Comics has an automated one that shows alerts for deletions, GANs, and move requests. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Correct, for project pages. The concern is the canvassing set-up at a MOS page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The cited section is merely a list of discussions elsewhere concerning style-related issues. I find it very helpful and was alerted to this discussion by the entry mentioned. The followers of MOS discussions are not, as a group, biased for or against existing MOS policy. I can't see how this list could be considered canvassing as defined by WP:CANVAS. Jmar67 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose if everything related to this film's marketing capitalizes the F, who are we to change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metropod (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS, Betty, Erik et al. If we were talking about xXx or S1M0NE I could see the point but dumping MOS in favour of marketing for the sake of a single letter would beg the question of why we have a MOS in the first place. Daß Wölf 22:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support People are using the poster as a defense. By that logic, there's no colon in the title either. Poster graphics aren't a reasonable defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, the poster artist did not name the film or decide on their own to upper case 'From'. Poster artists do not decide, they are given an assignment which is then either accepted or rejected. If they had lower-cased 'from' in the poster it would not have been accepted. And again, in case editors have forgotten, there is no source that lower-cases 'from'. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• IMDb displays it as "Spider-Man: Far from Home". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Our title guidelines and policies are unfortunately somewhat murky and followed inconsistently. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Billboard is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the books written that discuss the song, or Spin or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia does not name films, novels, TV series, or any creative work. The artists who make them do. This idea of telling them they're wrong is junk, and always has been. oknazevad (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ortography.OscarFercho (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CT. 193.114.117.128 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2019 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title Logic

If we have decided to leave "From" capitalized, then we need to change all instances of Ant-Man and the Wasp to capitalize the word "The" as that's how it appeared in all marketing such as trailers from Marvel and social accounts —Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 May 2019‎ (UTC)

Ant-Man and the Wasp is already capitalised as per the official site KylieTastic (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Earth "616"

According to this source, the trailer establishes that the MCU takes place in Earth-616. But this contradicts the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z's claim that it is Earth-199999. What to do? Is the source even worth adding? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the numbered designations have not been used in the films themselves so should not be included in the articles. Spanneraol (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Earth-199999 is the film universe's designation within the comic multiverse. Within the film multiverse, the main earth is called Earth-616. It isn't that complicated. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Stan lee cameo

It’s been officially confiremed that Stan lee was to unwell to do cameo for far from home joe Russo confirmed NakhlaMan (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If that's so, where is the source that says that? The source provided states the cameo's were confirmed for Endgame & Far From Home. HENDAWG229 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

See [2][3] for example. Those supercede earlier speculation. And the source used did not "confirm" that there would be a cameon in Far From Home. The only evidence was Feige saying "We shot a couple of others, so we’re coming up on the last of them, yes." Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering that there are conflicting sources for a Stan Lee cameo the current writing that he is "set to have a posthumous cameo" should be removed until something more definitive is found. Spanneraol (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, you have a quote from Feige on a blog saying "we shot a couple of others" not which films they are for, or if they are gonna be used... and the blog could have misquoted him and you have a quote from Russo saying the Avengers cameo was the last one... There is no proof he is in the film so it should not be included unless there is something definitive saying he is in the movie.Spanneraol (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(For your info, I do know how to use a talk page.) This is what is from the ET Online source used by Slasfilm:
Interviewer: "And then will we have one in Spider-Man: Far From Home?"
Feige: "We'll see. We're heading-- We shot a couple of others, so we're coming up on the last of them, yes."
Feige's confirmed in the interview that they've shot a couple of cameos for future MCU films. The last couple of films that were filmed by the release of Captain Marvel were Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home. Feige's saying that they shot those cameos, which the Slashfilm source readdresses. Also, Joe Russo's statements on Lee's cameo in Endgame being his final one is not all trustworthy considering the fact that we don't know if he had any insight or worked on Far From Home, and since he says he only believes it is his last one. Russo has not confirmed anything solid since he doesn't know if Lee filmed a cameo for FFH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Feige's comment begins with "we'll see..." so it is far from a sure confirmation that Lee is going to be in this movie... I really don't think it should say "he is set to appear" based on a source that is wishy washy at best. It seems likely based on other quotes that Lee was not healthy enough to shoot his planned cameo for FFH. All the sources i can find are just speculating.. and we shouldn't include speculative information. Spanneraol (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Feige's comments is a definitive yes, so I think it should be left out until we have actual confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Need update

The article still says that the film is upcoming and does not include a plot. The film has already been released, so can someone please fix this? Catinthedogs (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The film has not released yet, so, that will not be done as we don't know what the full plot is. The film will be released on July 2, 2019. Wait until then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Elementals

I think it's pretty clear by now that the elemental creatures in the movie are not meant to be the Elementals. Like, I'm pretty sure whenever they've used the word elemental in interviews, it was never intended to be capitalised. They're also referred to as 'elemental beings' and stuff like that. Elemental just means a thing made out of the elements, and I think Hydro-Man fits that descriptor. I think we should remove all hyperlinks to the Elementals from the comics, because there is overwhelming amounts of evidence against the idea, including easter eggs, interviews and the official merchandise that all point to, for example, the water creature being Hydro-Man and not 'Hydron'. I literally cannot find a single viable source that says that the villains are the Elementals from the comic, or that they even slightly resemble them, because they don't. Calling them adaptations of the Elementals because they're a group of villains organised in a water/fire/air/earth theme would be disingenuous, because that's a very generic and common way of structuring a team. Oarkley (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Title

Article should be at Spider-Man: Far from Home128.151.71.16 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

See this discussion as to why the page is not being moved to that target. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Stan Lee

To answer a commented-out note in the article: Having seen the film at a press screening Wednesday night, I can confirm Stan Lee does not appear in it.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Skrulls

Is there a source to confirm that Skrulls appear in the movie? The plot section says they do, but the cast section is mum about this subject. 2601:241:4280:161:11BC:B4C:2557:AF02 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but the cast section was (and is) pretty clear on the subject in the revision at the time of your writing. The source cited is this. Hope that helps!

Edit: Whoops, the source has been taken down now. I have tagged it as a dead-url until a better source is available. An archived version is still live on Google's amp drive, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Disguised people

Can't believe the real Fury wasn't around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:861D:28B7:3E89:9F67:C6B2 (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Credits

No spoilers, just a note re: wording in the credits.

I can't say offhand if the name "Michelle Jones" is given in Homecoming, but it's never uttered in Far from Home, and the end-credits list Zendaya's character as simply "MJ".

I can confirm as well that the names "Quentin Beck" and "Mysterio" both are used, both in dialog and in end-credits.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Only Michelle was used in the credits in homecoming and only refereed to as MJ in far from home never once was jones mentioned that is pure speculation Hhggtg3279 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

There are some really massive spoilers in this article for a movie that isn't even out yet. Perhaps flag them, or at least hide them. Like for real... 2601:143:8000:5906:25B1:96DC:9E6:6BE5 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:SPOILERS. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SPOILERS

Hey, the movie isn't out worldwide yet, so...some of the things in the cast section should probably be better hidden. Like, maybe Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury/Talos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:8000:5906:25B1:96DC:9E6:6BE5 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILERS. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't come to the Wikipedia page of the movie if you want to avoid spoilers. Once the movie is released in any part of the world for the general public, its plot and other related information is to be written on its Wikipedia page. The same problem was discussed during Avengers Endgame. If that movie wasn't spared, this one won't be either. So just stay away from Wikipedia. CaptainGKPrime (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Released?

After posting the above, I noticed the plot is in the article. Unless there has been an international release of which I'm unaware, the film has not opened commercially to the general public as of Thursday, June 27. If that is the case, the plot needs to come down. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It was released international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sup1233423 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Add end of a Saga

I think it’s important to mention on the Wikipedia page that Spider-Man: Far From Home marks both the end of the Infinity Saga as well as the end of Phase Three of the MCU Mike2936 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It already does appears here. That's too much detail for the lead, however. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jackson/Smulders as Skrulls

I’m not really worried about “spoilers” but I think listing Jackson and Smulders as their Skrull impersonators up-front in the Cast is kind of useless. It’s not revealed until the literal last minute of the film and it’s in a post-credits scene, and Jackson technically isn’t playing Talos, Mendelson would be playing Fury. Just think it’s confusing and obviously going beyond spoilers, is closer to Easter Egg territory than anything, and just listing him and Blynn on their own is sufficient.

Not sure I’m wording this properly as it’s coming across in my head but hopefully y’all know what I mean(?) Anyways, tell me if I’m wrong or you agree. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I actually agree with you.. Jackson is playing Fury, not Talos. Spanneraol (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense. Unless the Easter egg is going to affect the MCU's future in a big way, I don't see a reason to disagree. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree; Jackson & Smulders aren't playing their characters. Technically speaking, the real Maria Hill doesn't appear at all in this film, & the real Nick Fury (as portrayed by Jackson) only appears at the very end of the post-credits scene. Additionally, it's not just subtly revealed during the last minute of the movie; indeed, it's actually teased throughout the entirety of the film. For one thing, it's not in Fury's character whatsoever to trust Beck's story (especially as flimsy as it is) as he does in this movie. Regardless of that though, when it comes to actual pieces of evidence: when introducing Beck to Peter, Fury refers to Parker's Earth as "yours," rather than "ours" (as was teased in the trailer), making this a deliberately intended choice to hint at the true underlying character behind 'Fury;' additionally, 'Fury' mentions Kree sleeper cells in passing to 'Hill', a direct invocation of the name of the Skrulls' mortal enemies, further proof that this 'Fury' is wholly intended to be Talos disguised as Fury rather than just 'Fury-but-not-real-Fury-but-still-kinda-Fury,' not least considering real Fury would have no reason whatsoever to mention Kree sleeper cells in the context in which they were. These pieces of evidence serve as proof that Jackson & Smulders weren't portraying their characters; rather, they were portraying other characters *disguised* as their characters. And if nothing else, Talos says in his video-call to Fury during the post-credits scene that it was Talos who gave the glasses to Peter, further confirmation that the character choices were deliberately Talos (& Soren) the whole time.... oh, & no, in no context would Mendelsohn have been playing Fury. Here's how all of the relevant portrayals work -- Jackson plays two characters: Talos disguised as Fury, & then Fury. Smulders plays one character: Soren disguised as Hill. Mendelsohn plays one character: an undisguised Talos. Blynn plays one character: an undisguised Soren. Brucejoel99 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you’re getting into technicality and hoop-jumping territory. Look at something like Fantastic Beasts. Colin Farrell is only credited as Graves, not also Grindelwald despite the latter impersonating the former. Farrell and Depp are two different actors who are portraying two different characters to the audience, and I believe that is what should be reflected in the Cast section. Plus in Far From Home's credits, Jackson is only credited as Fury, not Fury/Talos. TropicAces (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

It should definitely go by what is in the credits.. that takes all the guesswork and original research out of it. Spanneraol (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright so that’s 3 people for just leaving Jackson credited as Fury. At what point does this become the “consensus” and can the article be edited (don’t want to put my cart before the horse is all)? (cc DeluxeVegan / Spanneraol) TropicAces (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Problem with "Future" section

There is a "Future" section, and I don't think a sequel to Spider-Man: Far From Home has been announced. Also, it only has one sentence. Can someone fix this if necessary? 73.185.25.110 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The section says that the third film is potential. It hasn't been officially announced, but could happen according to Holland. Not much is known about the potential third film, so, it is only one sentance due to the lack of info. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo and The Numbers

Hi, I want to address the fact that we can't have both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers as a source because their figures are different, so (in my opinion) we should stick to Box Office Mojo only and wait for its updates, like it was done on the Avengers: Endgame page for example. --Mazewaxie 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, we should wait for Box Office Mojo numbers and post them.Timur9008 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO, we should stick to The Numbers for now. The Numbers is also a reliable source, and the one providing the most up-to-date information for the film at the moment (The figures for two days do not appear to be visible on BOM). There would be no valid reason to not consider the more accurate figure. When BOM updates their database, we can always switch. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVegan: Ok, you are right I didn't notice the fact that they don't update the website since July 3.--Mazewaxie 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

THR and other sources are reporting the movie has crossed a billion dollars. Apparently the total is now $1.005 billion. Can this be updated? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-far-home-box-office-crosses-1b-a-franchise-first-1226598

Music

Re: this, why do you think it is unnecessary? The Homecoming article, and some other MCU articles, follow a similar format. Please establish consensus. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Does the Chameleon appear in this movie?

All the sources I have seen which try to claim that a character named Dmitri is actually the Chameleon have a lot of "may be" and "we think" sort of speculative talk - in other words, I have not seen a source which can confirm that this is the same character instead of just some random bad guy. 2601:241:4280:161:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: regardless of whether this Dmitri is actually the Chameleon or not, he's not a bad guy in this movie. He's just an associate of 'Fury' (as mimicked by Talos). Brucejoel99 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point, so is this associate of fake-Fury really supposed to be an extremely low-key supervillain, as edit-warred by User:Hhggtg3279 [4] using such dubious sources as "Blasting News", and then the link to comicbookmovie.com which says things like "May Introduce A Different Take On Chameleon", and notes that the director said "We're not specifically saying that he's...but we're not not saying." and somehow this user is translating that into proof that it was definitely the same character? Do we even have a source on the character's last name in the film being the same as the character's last name from the comics? 76.231.73.99 (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternately, there is the ScreenRant link, which says "This immediately tipped off Marvel fans that he could be playing Dmitri Smerdyakov, better known as classic Spider-Man foe Chameleon. This role was never confirmed to be who Acar was playing, but we learned some surprising details about him." So, again, do the sources support the assertion that this is the same character? 76.231.73.99 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No... these sources are just speculating.. there is no official confirmation and the movie doesn't identify him as such. Spanneraol (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes but the movie does confirm his full name when peter was scanning him with E.D.E.T.H like it said when he was scanning Brad Davis it said B.Davis, with Dimitri it said encrypted with his name at the top D.Smerdakov which coincidently is the chameleons real name, but besides the name of the character being same he served as nothing more an associate of fury before mysteriously disappearing. It's about at 35 minutes into the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhggtg3279 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess I will leave it alone then, but it would be better if you had a decent source that actually confirmed all of this. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s kinda hard to source it since literally zero websites have noticed that small detail since it happened in such a small time frame Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a really tough problem with these minor characters. A similar example is that the Daredevil Netflix series has a character who is named "Leland Owlsley" but otherwise has absolutely nothing in common with the Owl - totally different backstory, totally different personality, totally different physical appearance, and no powers. To me, a character is more than just a name, making this clearly an Easter egg rather than an official adaptation of the Owl. But no reliable sources are going to bother reporting on whether such a minor character is or isn't an official adaptation. I could remove the claim that the Netflix "Leland Owlsley" is the Owl as being WP:Original research, but there are going to be any number of editors who will re-add the claim insisting that you don't need a source when the series itself says the character is Leland Owlsley, and given how heavily comic book articles rely upon primary sourcing in general it's hard to make a convincing case against that argument.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead

The sentence "The film has grossed $580 million worldwide, becoming the sixth highest-grossing film of 2019, and was positively reviewed, with critics calling it a "fun and satisfying sequel" and praising the performances of the cast, particularly Holland and Gyllenhaal" seems a bit too long and reads funny, but that might just be me overthinking. Thoughts? DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely a run on sentence. I'd separate the bit about the money from the reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cast: JK Simmons as J Jonah Jameson

J. K. Simmons appears as J. Jonah Jameson in the mid-credits scene, reprising the role he had played a different incarnation of in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man film trilogy, marking the first time that an MCU character is portrayed by the same actor who had previously portrayed a non-MCU incarnation of said character.

Not definitively true if we're encompassing voice acting, as Lou Ferrigno voiced the Hulk in the MCU in The Incredible Hulk 2009, and in The Avengers, and Avengers: Age of Ultron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ferrigno#Filmography). I wanted to edit but can't quite think of a good way to articulate the difference, or if the difference is relevant enough to merit a change.

How does it read now? DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Connolly also stared in Hulk (2003) and Spider-Man: Homecoming Zvig47 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, my statement is incorrect. Zvig47 (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

About MJ

Look of course there is a lot of confusion concerning Zendaya's character the point I'm trying to make is that the movie homecoming never confirmed her name as Jones only the Michelle but was said, and it the credits zendaya was only credited as MJ, and from various producers it has been confirmed that although Michelle is an original mcu character she is based on two existing comics characters Michelle Gonzales which is the older sister of Vin Gonzales, which is the namesake of The Michelle character, while the MJ bit is taken from Mary Jane hence Michelle is a composite character which is an original character based on multiple existing ones. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Concur. We can only say what the movie says. Now that Bongwater has violated 3RR, I'm reporting it.--Tenebrae (talk)

Also, I've seen the movie twice now. She is never, ever called Michelle here. Ever. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks he is really starting to irritate me, I have read numerous reports and tried to explain that yes Michelle is a new character but she is based on existing minor characters, and jones was never even mentioned in the movie she was only referred to had Michelle Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

She was only called MJ at the end of the film, look people need to realise that she is a original character based on Michelle Gonzales and Mary Jane Watson, filling both their roles, like MCU Liz Allan is a combination of Vultures daughter Valeria and Liz Allen hence she is a new character called Liz Toomes get it ? Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for watching this. I have to see Homecoming again, but she's never called Michelle in Far from Home. Whatever we do with the cast list, ultimately, we can't call her Michelle in the plot. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it's a sequel to Homecoming and she was called Michelle in that so we know that is her name. Spanneraol (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Look let's just settle with Michelle / MJ, we know she was called Michelle like only once in homecoming and referred to as MJ in the credits, that way it satisfies all parties, since her last name is pure speculation heck fiege never even mentioned it I think her last name came from all the press reports coming up with that Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hhggtg3279 is correct. I've just seen Homecoming again, with closed captions: Teacher Mr Harrington, played by Martin Starr, calls her "Michelle" at about the 59:10 mark, in an outdoor scene at the Washington Monument (which doesn't appear in the closed captioning for some reason, but it clearly audible in dialog) and again at about 01:56:31, as the Academic Decathlon team sits around a desk with the trophy (and this time it is in closed caption). Finally, she is listed as "Michelle" in the end credits. of Homecoming but as "MJ" in the end credits of this movie. At no point whatsoever does either movie's dialog or credits call her "Jones". If the movies do not, then we cannot.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Still people persist to put jones even though it was never stated in any of the movies, I think this article needs some form of protection as there's a lot of edit warring going on Hhggtg3279 (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked for temporary full protection but I guess that didn't go through. We'll just have to stay vigilant.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m trying to go through pages listing her as Jones and removing it since I can’t find one official source that lists her as Jones they only list her as either Michelle and most just MJ, heck even Kevin never called her Jones, he just said she was Michelle and she is a new character which took inspiration from spideys previous live interests kinda like the new elementals took inspiration from lesser known spider man villains and the comic group of elementals to create someone new. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure whether this should be considered as a credible source, but in "Spider-Man: Far From Home - The Official Movie Special" (page previews available on Google Books), it does refer to the character "MJ" with the name "Michelle Jones". Additionally in the same preview, interviews with JB Smoove and Martin Starr reveal their characters' names as "Julius Dell" and "Roger Harrington" respectively.

Source for name "Michelle Jones" - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false

Source for names "Julius Dell" and "Roger Harrington" - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false

DantesWeb (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If the movie doesn't give the full names, we can't give those names. Characters' names are added/changed in other media all the time. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hhggtg3279: Zendaya's character IS NOT Mary Jane Watson. Can you please stop editing that? Thanks. --Mazewaxie 14:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at the references your right in the sense that she isn't the comic version of Mary Jane but following far from home it is clear that she replaces Mary Jane as both MJ and Peters main love interest, heck she wasn't even called Michelle once in far from home only MJ, look at all the references it even says Zendaya's Michelle is a new take on the Mary Jane character, heck `Zendaya even dyed her heir Red in homage to the character Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a character based on Mary Jane Watson but she's not Mary Jane Watson, so the wikilink should point to Michelle / MJ, not to Mary Jane Watson. --Mazewaxie 15:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hhggtg3279: Also Kevin Feige explicitly said: "In setting up this will be a very different thing, she's not Mary Jane Watson, that's not who the character is. [...] But giving her the initials that remind you of that dynamic certainly is intriguing about what could go forward." So end of the discussion. --Mazewaxie 15:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• The official guide to the film calls the character “Michelle Jones”. Should we say this in our cast section (as Hhggtg3279 proposed), or should we stick to the credits? Note that there was a previous consensus to just write Michelle / MJ, so any change needs a new consensus. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• pinging @Tenebrae. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Look what's been established is we know the film never calls her jones only Michelle, but the promotional material including lego sets confirmed their last name, and the reason is only called MJ in far from home is because I guess they changed mind and basically just made Michelle essentially the MCU's version of MJ. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Or we could just list it as MJ since she is never referred to as Michelle in this film or the credits Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say the official guide is still not the manifest content of the film. If the film does not call her Michelle Jones in dialog, onscreen printed artifacts or credits, then we really can't call her that, per FILMMOS.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it should just be labelled as MJ since she is not called Michelle once in this film and the cast list is for Far from Home Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Per FILMMOS since the in this specific film since she is not called Michelle and only MJ I think it should be that same applies to how Ned isn’t called Edward in the cast list because he is never called his full name in the film the cast list is for this film. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ned is never called Edward in Homecoming, but MJ mostly went by Michelle in that film. Also, I was not aware of such a policy. Can you link to it? DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just saying that yes she was mostly refererred to as Michelle in homecoming but she is never called that in far from home, anyway the cast list is based on the credits from the film in terms of order and how each actor was credited that's all I was trying to say Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Look enough is enough I want to set the record clear she is not Mary Jane she is not Gonzales, she is like Ivan Vanko from iron man 2, an original character which happens to be based on existing ones, like how Ivan Vanko / Whiplash is based on Anton Vanko / Whiplash and the Boris Turgenov / Crimson Dynamo, hence how he used Boris Turgenov as an alias in Iron Man 2, the same applies here, Michelle takes inspiration from Michelle in terms of appearance and personality, while she takes inspiration from Mary Jane in terms of role of being Peters love interest and in a rivalry with Brad Davis like in the comics and like the flying through New York scene which is very similar to the onea from the Sam Raimi trilogy and the alias which she uses MJ. At this point in time she it’s pretty much been confirmed by Feige and stuff that she takes inspiration from both characters I think in the cast list it needs links to both characters pages https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Hhggtg3279 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

anyone here Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Michelle is a different version of Mary Jane

Official novelisation states Michelle is adapted from Mary Jane Watson https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Various websites selling official far from home merchandise list Zendaya's character as MJ/Mary Jane, specifically the Funko Pops and the Marvel Legends Toyline http://marveltoynews.com/funko-spider-man-far-from-home-pop-vinyls-mystery-minis-figures/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://shop.marvel.com/marvel/store/DSIProductDisplay?catalogId=10002&productId=26356&storeId=50051&langId=-1&krypto=AQei%2FNsVc7Bytka9Jh4dBWyD1wtK%2FFkYVI2VrDmp%2BFdc7MNjSyeJFMsBb3qyUAevrYDo8%2FCeUooM7sec31st5FJUf1NqcfiDACYORmD3MkWPiHtYe%2Be0o45Igo%2F6KW06QA8ya%2Ft2RiKD4Lq3IQB6tcfteqqdONY%2FytMjCqYByDwiN8GFH6aOfpwIUVYwL22x#longDesc Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://forbiddenplanet.com/271952-spider-man-far-from-home-pop-vinyl-figure-mary-jane/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, we don't have official confirmation about it, only hypothesis, and Kevin Feige has explicitly said: "In setting up this will be a very different thing, she's not Mary Jane Watson, that's not who the character is. [...] But giving her the initials that remind you of that dynamic certainly is intriguing about what could go forward." So Mary Jane Watson certainly had a part in the creation of Zendaya's character, but she definitely isn't Mary Jane Watson. --Mazewaxie 15:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Then why does it list her on all the merchandise as either MJ or Mary Jane Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look this is the official novelisation which includes cast interviews literally States from the comics: Mary Jane Watson, heck Zendaya literally says she is thankful she don't have to keep the MJ reveal secret anymore https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look I'm saying that all evidence points towards her being the mcu's interpretation of Mary Jane, she is not comic accurate but has been reimagined to resonate with today's audiences and to avoid rehashing old ideas, being changed from the classic damsel in dimstress to being her own independent confident character.

Another example of a character being changed drastically for the MCU is Purple Man, his comics name was Zebadiah Killgrave but his mcu name was changed to Kevin Thompson, despite the name change and minor change in personality, this Kevin character is still Purple Man as he has same intentions and same role as his comic iteration. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Same applies to Mary Jane Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok I think here's why people are getting confused ok we know of the multiverse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(Marvel_Comics) Ok let me explain we know Earth-616 is the prime universe which contains all the original characters, when we start talking about alternate reality variations of characters the possibilities are endless, there are numerous examples of characters being changed drastically in the MCU from their comic counterparts.

Mar-Vell in the MCU is portrayed as a female but in the comics is portayed a male Liz Allen in the MCU is named Liz Toomes (her father is Vulture), however this is not the case in the comics

Purple Man is like MJ in the comics his real name was Zebadiah Killgrave, commonly known as purple man but in the mcu he is renamed Kevin Thompson and is known by his nickname Kilgrave (only with one L), same applies to Zendaya's MJ, your right in the sense she is not the Earth-616 version of Mary Jane which is the point Fiege was trying to make, since this is not Earth-616 and an alternate universe, this worlds version of Mary Jane can be changed like Kilgrave and she was now being called a Michelle, but goes by MJ, the point of trying to make is Zendaya's MJ is not the comic Mary Jane like Fiege was saying, she is an alternate reality version of Mary Jane. And since this is a completely different universe they can freely adapt their characters in any way they want even if it means changing most aspects of her character. Hhggtg3279 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is all original research and your own hypothesis... which doesn't go in wikipedia articles.. The toy stuff doesn't say she is Mary Jane Watson it just says MJ... she is a new character who was given her initials as an homage to the comic character but to say she is "based on" Mary Jane is inaccurate. Spanneraol (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look it's not original research have you even looked at any articles? Your just nitpicking and leaving stuff Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look it lists her as Mary Jane https://forbiddenplanet.com/271952-spider-man-far-from-home-pop-vinyl-figure-mary-jane/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Mary Jane http://marveltoynews.com/funko-spider-man-far-from-home-pop-vinyls-mystery-minis-figures/

Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Mary Jane https://www.amazon.com/Funko-Pop-Marvel-Spider-Man-Home/dp/B07NSPL5J5 Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at that it says Zendaya's MJ and when it goes to which comics character she is adapted from it says Mary Hane Watson https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Literally I can bring up more stuff if I have to get really I depth to get you to listen Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look dude.. none of that merchandise stuff has anything to do with the film production as it is done separately and many of these pages arent the official marvel pages anyway. Stop making unilateral changes that are against page consensus or you risk a block. Spanneraol (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Who are you supposed to be my mum?? Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look you haven't got any information too, I'm compiling a list to put you on ice Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look here's all the info I can gather I'll keep getting it but i don't know when you'll actually bother to read them https://www.teenvogue.com/story/zendaya-red-hair-spider-man-far-from-home

https://www.instyle.com/news/zendaya-red-hair-color

https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/06/17/spider-man-far-from-home-zendaya-red-hair-mj-mary-jane/

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/02/16/spider-man-far-from-home-mj-weapon-mace-funko-pop/

https://forbiddenplanet.com/271952-spider-man-far-from-home-pop-vinyl-figure-mary-jane/

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/film/2019-06-26/meet-the-cast-of-spider-man-far-from-home/

https://www.themarysue.com/zendaya-is-mj/

Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

These sources are irrelevant.. you have some gossipy sites about the actress changing her hair color, some toy sites and some blogs. What you need is any sort of actual quote from someone associated with the film not random blogs with questionable reliability. A number of editors have reverted you.. you need to establish consensus before making changes. That is how things work. Spanneraol (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to establish a consensus but nobody wants to get involved I started like 2 posts and nobody even bothers to listen to me and that's official movie novelisation has an interview with Zendaya Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are posting unreliable sources, that's why we revert your changes, it's not that we aren't listening you. --Mazewaxie 16:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well tell me which websites which are reliable to you then Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look WP:RS to understand what "reliable source" means. --Mazewaxie 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I just want you to tell me the list of websites deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards please Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this one ok? https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/06/18/spider-man-far-from-homes-zendaya-pays-homage-to-mary-jane-watson Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this one ok? https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/06/18/spider-man-far-from-homes-zendaya-pays-homage-to-mary-jane-watson Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, that article only say the actress is paying homage to the character.. not that the producers based her character on the comic book character. Also, establishing a consensus isn't you stating your opinion over and over again.. you need to get others to agree with the wording you want to use. Spanneraol (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Omg I need a producer now how the heck am I supposed to do it?? Geez I didn’t realise Wikipedia got this strict it was a lot more lax a few years ago, and getting a consensus is impossible since nobody is actually inputting into the article Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

He meant that you need to find a reliable source in which a producer/director/screenwriter says that MJ is Mary Jane Watson. --Mazewaxie 17:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

Please correct the box office numbers as it is the 43rd highest grossing movie ever! 2A00:23C6:548B:C100:2D0D:F919:F778:F44F (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional Casting

Why isn't Jorge Lendeborg Jr.'s character, the rest of the students, the voice of EDITH and Beck's crew listed under the cast list. Lendeborg Jr.'s character was even in Homecomeing and is listed on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost434 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

$1 billion

According to a ton of trades (we'll use Variety's post for brevity), the film has grossed about $1.005 billion worldwide now, but BOM hasn't updated yet. Do we lean one way or another on if BOM is the ultimate authority, or should we use the additional sources reporting the increased gross? Sock (tock talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion we should wait for a BOM update. Maybe it will come in a few hours. --Mazewaxie 17:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use the Variety source until the BOM update, It's not like Variety is unreliable. El Millo (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead with that. I only said that we should wait because BOM will (probably) update it really soon, but I have nothing against Variety. --Mazewaxie 17:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit: BOM has just update foreign grosses for Endgame and Aladdin, so FFH should be updated soon. --Mazewaxie 17:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

According to a Deadline article from an hour ago, the film "will swing past the $1B mark at the global box office today", so I would say we wait until it actually happens. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

New potential source for MJ's real name

We already know "M" stands for "Michelle", but people haven't been very unanimous about "J" standing for "Jones". This YouTube video, however, belongs to one of Disney's verified YouTube channels. But before any edit into Wikipedia about this matter is made, I want to know: do you consider this source reliable enough? CAJH (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The film is distributed by Sony, but Disney owns Marvel Studios, so it's hard to see much unreliability. CAJH (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't argue with this. SassyCollins (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to movies and tv in-universe content, the only reliable source is what happens on screen. Not what commentators and other sources say. Most of the times they say a lot of contradictory information. A good is example is how the Endgame directors and writers have been trying to explain Captain America's ending. They've given like 3 different explanations. And the recent claim by the Russos that Nova was in the Endgame battle. Long story short, let MJ be Michelle/MJ. I don't see the pressure to add her last name. Starforce¹³ 12:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it just keeps bothering me. And the only thing I've been able to do in Wikipedia lately is undoing vandalism and writing the same information of these pages into the pages of Finnish Wikipedia. CAJH (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

cite-parameters for the references

There seems to something wrong with the references. I myself have no idea what is wrong nor how to fix it. Could somebody who does maybe take a look at this? Cheers! SassyCollins (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is true for almost all Wikipedia articles now. I think the template code has been changed; apparently now the website parameter is compulsory for cite web, and dead-url is deprecated in favour of url-status. I think bots/volunteers will take care of it. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Spider-Man: Homecoming 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spider-Man: Homecoming 2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)