Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming

Plot addition

Parker failed to convince Stark to let him stay with the suit, he returns to his high school life, and eventually asks Liz to go to the homecoming dance with him. On the night of the dance, Parker learns that Liz is Toomes' daughter. Deducing Parker's secret identity, Toomes threatens retaliation if he interferes with his plans. During the dance, Parker realizes Toomes is planning to hijack a D.O.D.C. plane transporting weapons from Avengers Tower to the team's new headquarters. He dons his old homemade Spider-Man suit and races to Toomes' lair. He is first ambushed by Schultz, but defeats him with the help of Ned. At the lair, Toomes destroys the building's support beams and leaves Parker to die. Parker escapes the rubble and intercepts the plane, steering it to crash on the beach near Coney Island. He and Toomes continue fighting, ending with Parker saving Toomes' life after some unstable material explodes, and leaving him for the police along with the plane's cargo. After her father's arrest, Liz moves away, and Parker declines an invitation from Stark to join the Avengers full-time. Stark returns Parker's suit, which he puts on at his apartment just as his Aunt May walks in.

In a mid-credits scene, an incarcerated Gargan approaches Toomes in prison. Gargan has heard that Toomes knows Spider-Man's real identity, but Toomes denies this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.88.10 (talk)

Watch the Game

I wanted to target Watch the Game to a place that actually mentions it, but I can't find any. Is this not called this anymore? Gonnym (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is actually a TV spot made with ESPN to market the NBA finals. It is discussed in the third "Marketing" paragraph with the ref NBAFinalsSpot4EW-217, though the title is not noted there and a quick search doesn't pop up any good sources using it, despite it being the title. Plus, the videos in the EW article are private now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that redirect should be put up for deletion, per WP:RDELETE#D8. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Idealy, if that is the official name for the marketing series, it should be added to the article. If this isn't used anywhere then yes, deletion is the way. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Eight years later

@Trailblazer101: I think we should reconsider the eight years thing, even though we have the note for context. The way I had it works both ways by adhering to what the film gives but also works for casual readers who might not immediately read the note. Additionally the fact Marvel Studios is releasing an official timeline sometime this fall in the book they’re releasing should be another reason why. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Casual readers won't care about the continuity between films or the official timeline. DonQuixote (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was pinged as I have not edited regarding this, although I will say what should be present in the plot description is what is in the movie, which is explicitly "Eight years later". Simply saying "Years later" is ambiguous. Hence the use of a note to explain the continuity correction that came after its release. Said note also explicitly directs the reader to Marvel Cinematic Universe#Timeline if they want a more detailed explanation on this, so going into detail in the note here on where it was corrected to is irrelevant for casual readers, and is already better explained in full at the MCU article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I realized I meant to ping Favre, oops. Not sure my mind thought to ping you. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Any person watching the film will see it explicitly uses "Eight years later". We should follow the film, and in this case since outside information tells us that is wrong, we have the note explaining such. I agree with Trail that "Years later" is ambiguous. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the plot summary should reflect what is in this film. The fact that it doesn't work in the wider MCU timeline is trivia that should be kept to the note and other appropriate places. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And the truth is finally out. Hardly a surprise.Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97 and Trailblazer101, please see what you can do. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have read the Official Timeline book and am rummaging through sources for commentary, including this film's discrepancy, I still believe we should provide the details as given in the film and explain the external information in a note, just as we do for any other post-release or external information provided on other titles, such as Feige identifying Thanos at The Avengers or the "Six months later" timeline at Iron Man 2. The book is further evidence that what was displayed in the film is incorrect, though that should not merit removing what the film featured, rather, we provide the response and subsequent information about it and why it was wrong. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what Trail said. Any change to the "eight years later", no matter how "incorrect" it is, should be covered in the explanatory note. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said to change the plot. Only to add it to the footnote, and the timeline section in the main MCU article. And possibly this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Carveouts to sourcing guidelines for reviews

If editors would favour a special carveout from RFC findings of WP:GUNREL on a source - e.g. to allow special carveouts for usage of a a source found WP:GUNREL in a broad general RFC - the correct venue for such would be WP:RSN, where the RFC ran - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)