Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe

Screenwriting credits

I have brought this up before (in my edit comments), and as-is this still doesn't make sense to me. The article currently has director, screenwriter, and producer credits. As credited by the WGAW, there are also story-writing credits for each of these films. They are clearly notable as they are credited in the movies, but some editors refuse to include such a column. What is the reasoning that this table is edited to remove these credits?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no comments opposing this, I am going to go ahead and add the credits for writers that authored the story to each film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. No immediate comments do not mean there is an agreement to implement your proposed changes. Story writer credits are not typically used in the main credits by major outlets, and it adds excessive details to the table that can easily be covered for those who do want it to find it at the article in the infoboxes. This has been explained to you many times before by myself and other editors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Every role is credited in the movies, all the heads of each field within the production on a film are notable, the editor, the cinematographer, the VFX supervisor, the composer, etc. That doesn't mean we should include them everywhere. Director, producer, and screenwriter are generally considered the most relevant three. So the fact that the story-writing credit is credited in the movies isn't enough to justify adding it to a table about a whole franchise of films. Every other relevant role not included here is already at each film's respective article. —El Millo (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: actually, that can be how it works. If no one opposes a change within the month's time that I had proposed the change -- I made the edits per WP:BOLD. Additionally "This has been explained to you many times before by myself and other editors"... where do you get this from? Story writing credits are indeed notable, as they are listed on the billing block of the film poster, and are detailed in the credits right near/with the credited screenwriter. @Facu-el Millo: typically those additional production credits are listed in another table. I was referring to those who are credited in the billing block, and by the WGAW.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You were reverted on this in the past and it was explained to you on this in the past in the edit summaries from other editors, which would be an implicit consensus to not use it. Story credits are not commonly used across these tables. I am not discounting their notability. Editors can find them at the respective film articles where applicable. Not every film has a story credit, though every film has a screenwriting/writer credit, which should remain in place here. An article is not to be changed to satisfy the desired version of one editor. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article is about the shared universe. We only list in that table what are generally considered to be the main "authors" or contributors to the films, being those the directors and writers, in these tables where we list all the films. Having those additional production credits listed in another table serve no purpose for this article, which is about the franchise and about information relevant for the franchise, not just a collection of details about every individual film. We list very generally what each film is about, its director, writer, when it was released. We then include information that is relevant particularly in relation to the franchise as a whole, such as the critical reception and box office, the developments of the production side of the franchise, connections to other media, etc. There's no need to list all creative heads in this article, as all that information is already included and talked about in more detail at each film's respective article. Lastly, when Trailblazer said That's not how this works, he was referring to you considering no comments opposing this as an implicit support for it, which it is not. It is still would've been correct to make a WP:BOLD edit, but that's what it would be, a BOLD edit, not an edit with consensus. —El Millo (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: it sounds like you are the one who is pushing to "satisfy the desired version of [some] editor[s]" (to use your own language). There are numerous articles about film franchises which include story writing credits in their film tables. The reason that they are noteworthy, is the reason that they should be included on the film table. It's as simple as that. You state that there are other editors who have "explained to [me] this in the past" but that is subjective. As I have stated there are countless franchise articles that use the story writing credits. It seems to me that you are merely trying to mirror the MCU article, currently. I completely disagree that story credits shouldn't be included. When a film gives "written by" as the sole credit that generally means that the WGAG gives sole credit to writing abilities to that one writer. When they split the credits between "Story by" and "Screenplay by" credits -- it's that one group of writers wrote the overall story (framework) while the other writers wrote the script (and contributed enough to be given credit). Ignoring the story credits, is ignoring a very significant contribution to the film. @Facu-el Millo: I wasn't inferring that no comments meant that it was a consensus. My statement was that no one had responded/there were no oppositions, and so I WP:BOLDly made the change. I would additionally respond to your previous statements the same way. While this article is about a "Shared universe" as you pointed out -- what makes up this "shared universe"? It's a franchise. A franchise of movies and upcoming TV series. The associated production details/studios/creatives involved, are all absolutely notable.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean pertinent. When talking about Sony's Spider-Man Universe, it doesn't matter who was the cinematographer for Morbius, it doesn't add anything of value to this article. It's pertinent to the article Morbius (film). I won't argue particularly for or against including the "Story by" credit in the table, I'll argue generally against including creatives from the individual films in franchise articles just because they are relevant to each individual film, because they are not relevant to the franchise as a whole, so it becomes WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the context of this article. I understand your argument that "Story by" is basically part of a "Written by" split between story and screenplay, so that's why I wouldn't be particularly against this instance, while it is still clear to me that, when choosing between either "Story by" or "Screenplay by", the later takes precedence. —El Millo (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I am coming back to this thread once again. While each detail about the filmmaking processes needn't be in this table, it is commonplace enough to have each of the writing credits provided by the WGA. As there isn't any opposition to the story by credits, I would still argue that this article should reflect as much.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"it is commonplace enough to have each of the writing credits" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because you say it is done elsewhere does not mean we have to do it here. And where are you seeing this? I am definitely in opposition to you continually ignoring my opposition and opposition from others such as Adamstom in the past. We have already explained to you why these changes you persist in making are not being done in this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Related films

@DisneyMetalhead: Would you agree we should have a related films section making mention of the SSU cameos in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023), the latter establishing the world of the SSU as Earth-688? Envoyjuaner (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A related films section has been reverted in the past as it has just been a table without much new information added that is not already covered elsewhere in the article. Such a table is not needed. I am working on adding what is true on the SSU and Spider-Verse connections to this article with adequate sourcing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I know. I disagree, and am opening a dialogue here on the talk. Envoyjuaner (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In what ways would such a table provide any useful details to this article specifically that is not already covered. On one end, it can be misleading to have another table of films as some readers could interpret those as being part of the franchise when they are not. Please see discussions on this in the archives, such as Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe/Archive 1#Related films and Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe/Archive 1#Related..."media"(?) vs Related films, where it was determined prose is sufficient to explain these details as is already done throughout the article and would be unneeded repetition. Including every single film with Spider-Man (Maguire, Garfield, and Holland) is unneeded repetitio of Spider-Man in film, and Garfield and Maguire are not connected to the SSU directly. A section just discussing the NWH and Across connections is already established at the MCU and Spider-Verse connections header in the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Really just to discuss the multiverse cameos — in particular Mrs. Chen in Across the Spider-Verse. Envoyjuaner (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noted that in the MCU and SV connections header here with my most recent edit, where other cameos in NWH, LTBC, and Morbius are already noted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@EnvoyJuaner: I would agree that a "related films" section would indeed be constructive. It isn't "misleading" as User:Trailblazer101 stated, as this can be clarified in pros/paragraph form beforehand. A film table would show similar details to what is shown on the films section above (i.e.: film title, release date, director(s), writers, and producers) and only continue to build what the Sony studio is doing per the sources I added before... MULTIVERSE. To not include the films on this article would be a disservice to the SSU as a whole.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times on this, the information on the multiverse connections is already included in this article. Including a table of films with information already given at each film's article is not necessary here, and I have yet to see any new points that prove otherwise to overrule prior consensus on this. This article is only for what is in Sony's shared universe, not for everything connected to the multiverse of Spider characters. That's why Spider-Man in film exists, and it would be unneeded repetition of the table there. Multiverse connections can be noted at that article if not already done so adequately. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And as I have stated multiple times, what makes the information of the mutilversal connections not noteworthy enough to include additional details, here? They are all connected through the multiverse. I'm not necessarily stating that they need to have a film table, although it gives the average reader a detailed overall insight to the connections. What is obvious however, is that the section detailing the multiverse needs to be expanded to include more details.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: similar to my other comments, it's worth noting that you didn't response to my comments here from June 2023 as well. A section detailing the related films, as the Sony's Spider-Man Universe does connect to various other franchises -- would be helpful, and it wouldn't be "misleading" if in pros of the section it was detailed how they are connected (i.e.: through the multiverse which is a large part of all of Sony's Spider-Verse franchises).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been busy with a lot of things since then, on and off wiki, and you could have also rejuvenated this conversation once it went stale. Timing besides the point, it is not up to a sole individual to restart a discussion, and no one is obligated or mandated to respond (this is not a court proceeding). It would be unnecessary to implement a random wikitable at the bottom of the article when the films relevant to this franchise are already explained in detail where it is necessary. There is consensus not to include such a table in this article anymore, with the consensus established here. I don't see that changing anytime soon with very limited support for including it anymore. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, silence is the weakest form of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a "related films" section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Random photo of Tom Hardy

I just want to point out how odd it is to include a photograph of Tom Hardy, and not any other photos. To have the star of the first movie is unusual. A better option may be to include images of the filmmakers that are linked to these projects. Otherwise, explain to me (and the average reader) why Tom Hardy's photograph is here to stay.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hardy is also a writer and producer of the Venom films, opposed to the different directors, writers, producers, etc. That's why it is included and no other images are... Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

...but why is only his photo on this article? Where are the other writers/producers? That still doesn't make sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead Yet again you have removed this image against the consensus, and as such, I have issued you a warning. I and other editors have explained the purpose of the image in edit summaries and in past edits and discussions elsewhere. Just because it "doesn't make sense" to you is not a justifiable excuse to be disruptive and continually remove it while wholly knowing it is a contested edit. I strongly urge you to cease your removal of this image. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: the logic of including just one of the actors (who just so happens to be a writer/producer) still doesn't make any sense. I have expressed this and had no response since June of 2023 which is why I removed the image again. You stated that you and other editors gave valid reasons for the image, but if you're going to include an actor who is a writer/producer... where are the other actors/producers/writers? By what means does is it a requirement for an image to be on the article? Additionally where are those "other discussions" that you're talking about^?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The lack of a response does not give you justification to make a contested edit again (rather, a ping asking for a response would be more constructive), which you know has been contested for a while now. As I already explained, the fact that Hardy is also a writer and producer is notable as he is a recurring creative in the Venom films part of this franchise. One image in an otherwise imageless article is more helpful to readers than no images at all. There are multiple actors, writers, and producers, yes, though none who share all three roles and are as deeply involved in their franchise in this universe than Hardy, who was the first leading actor cast in the franchise and is therefore more notable and relevant than any other random actor, director, etc. How does that not "make any sense"? By "other discussions", I was referring to your continued past attempts to fixate this article in your own preferred version and making excuses to justify such repeated and contested edits, such as it "still doesn't make sense". Editors, including explained, this to you multiple times in edit summaries in which we reverted your removal. You can return to those through the page's editing history. You claim on your talk to "not intentionally being 'disruptive'", yet your repeated removal of this image and other preference changes despite multiple editors beyond just myself reverting and warning you for them in the past lends credence to doubt that and question what your intentions are then. You're lucky I haven't reported you for this editing behavior yet out of WP:Assuming good faith, though this has become quite disruptive in its repetitive nature after several months of on-and-off removals and changes against consensus for how this article's formatting and images are and without adequately explaining what your concerns are with the established article or how and why your changes would benefit it, and without further engaging in discussions once they've gone stale. It is not okay to be bold to restore your contested edits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments all sound like your own personal preference. The solution to this would be several things that I have stated various times as well: Include images of the starring actors in each section (i.e.: Tom Hardy, Jared Leto, Dakota Johnson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, etc.) or to include the filmmaker of each film instead (i.e.: Ruben Fleischer, Andy Serkis, Daniel Espinosa, S.J. Clarkson, J.C. Chandor, Kelly Mercel, etc.). I have also stated at various times why this would be a constructive enhancement of the article for every reader. There were no contested statements on my comment since June 2023... so I WP:BOLDly made an adjustment to the article, until a decision was made. My opinion that it "still doesn't make sense" is indeed meant to be constructive for the article. Thank you for assuming WP:GOODFAITH because, that is all that this is. My suggestion would be to have an open discussion with the various editors who have regularly contributed to this article, though it is worth pointing out seems that you regularly adjust the article to some of your preferences. Only looking to make the article consistent and more complete. That is all. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

How is this their own personal preference? Trailblazer clearly stated that Hardy is the most involved and recurring in the franchise out of all the directors and other actors, as star of three films (counting the upcoming Venom 3) and a producer in two of them. You could still not consider it "enough" to warrant him being the only picture included, but it's clearly and objective measure of relevance to the franchise as a whole. To include a picture of the director of every film would be excessive and unnecessary, plus inappropriate for an article about a franchise, where relevant people are often those that are repeatedly involved, not just once. —El Millo (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Television Series Table

If both announced series are on MGM+ and Amazon Prime Video, then why make a column for it in the table. Shouldn't it be included in text and the column be removed? Syed Ahmed Qasim (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been moved to prose now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)