This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 12, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Recently there has been a disagreement between Aspects and myself about whether one of the following two posters should be used as the article's main visual representation: [1] [2].
My stance is that poster 1 (widely considered to be one of the major pieces of visual identification for the film, as it released alongside the final trailer and was majorly used throughout the final stretch of its marketing run); while theirs seems to stem from the fact the poster does not indicate a straight date (the poster indicates a Christmas release), stating poster 2 (one of many character posters, and in some way a variant of the main poster, depicting Miles and indicating the film's December 14 release) works better as visual representation of the article. This is something we disagree on, since I think a fixed date (or lack thereof) shouldn't put one poster above the other.
Based on this disagreement, and per WP:BRD, we believe a consensus should be arrived to before any further changes are made. Madyoshi01 ( talk) 00:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Spider-Verse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I noticed Gwen already has an article, so wouldn't it make sense for Miles to have one? HiGuys69420 ( talk) 14:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Enter the spiderverse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Enter the spiderverse until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Spider-Man: A New Universe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Spider-Man: A New Universe until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Editors continue to do things without thinking about it just because other articles do things without thinking about it. See
WP:NAVBOX "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article.
" I restate my ongoing objection to even more low relevance being added without any consensus.
People keep adding a long list of low relevance tables then hiding them inside yet another table, [3] that nearly half of Wikipedia editors will never see anyway. It has been years but few editors are actually willing to even try to explain why they want to do this or explain how it actually improves the page or why they are so happy to ignore the rules about WP:HIDDEN content. But I repeat myself, see Talk:Spider-Man:_Into_the_Spider-Verse/Archive_1#List_Cruft
The awards navboxes might be somewhat relevant to the List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse but only a few high relevance navboxes are actually needed here. -- 109.78.203.213 ( talk) 14:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Rusted_AutoParts said in their edit summary No the onus is on you to gain a consensus before removing standard page content
That's the thing, it really isn't.
The guidelines at
WP:NAVBOX expressly state that these are not standard and not required. The guidelines: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."
--
109.78.203.213 (
talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited"Do you really disagree with the WP:Navbox guidelines? Do you really believe all these hidden tables are necessary or relevant? I firmly believe the burden is on you to show relevance for including these not on me to justify excluding a bunch of low relevance hidden tables that most users are not ever even shown. I made an entirely different edit and clearly explained my logic to set limit and a floor on this, my personal preference would be to not include them at all. What criteria of relevance would you set? What limit if any would you place on these Navboxes? Please do explain and discuss your logic and what you think should be done. -- 109.78.203.213 ( talk) 21:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
To IP 109, I'm aware you reverted a rather substantial amount of the lead sentences I added because of a potentially WP:PUFF sentence, "one of the greatest superhero films of all time" when I added it only because such words are already cited at least once, and you did not remove the sentence "one of the best animated films of the 21st century". I'm especially annoyed in that you reverted another sentence I added to highlight an entire section's worth on the film's impact/influence, which is too substantial to be ignored. Do you have a solution to support my intentions without puffery? Carlinal ( talk) 15:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
one of the greatest superhero films of all time"seems like minor praise by comparison (like how when a film has won an Academy Award it doesn't really seem necessary to highlight that it has won a BAFTA).
"was praised by filmmakers and animation peers, with its aesthetics influencing subsequent animated productions"that's a fair summary of the Legacy section. I have general concerns about trimming bloat and trying to keep the WP:LEAD concise but apologize for my haste and I will restore that part. -- 109.78.203.213 ( talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Street fighting turning on 68.193.83.108 ( talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)