Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home

Spider-Man: King in Black

Should the rumoured title of Spider-Man 4 (King in Black) be mentioned in the Future section? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RUMORS, unverifiable rumors and speculation are not permitted on Wikipedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have much better rumors and you ask me about that, instead. Don't listen to your rumor.Lenny7092 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have any actual reliable sources to discuss here, this is not helpful as we do not include any rumors as they are unverifiable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Visual effects

It appears they continued working on VFX even after the movie's release. How and where to incorporate this? Kailash29792 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Read the article. He is talking about doing work on additional scenes for the home release/behind the scenes. This very likely is a common occurrence and nothing out of the ordinary for the industry. Doesn't need to be noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Work on home video material (and likely for the extended cut) is not notable or different from how these films are typically made. We used to get short films made for home video releases, after all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I assumed - incorrectly - that the film was released theatrically with unfinished VFX because Marvel usually favours meeting deadlines rather than postponing to ensure perfection, and these post-release changes were something like this. But thanks for clarifying, so I'll leave it at that. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spider-Man: Brand New Day § Requested move 1 April 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spider-Man: Brand New Day § Requested move 1 April 2025. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation concerns

adamstom.97 has expressed concern about my recent footnote edit for multiple references to reduce potential citation overkill, using Back to the Future (an FA) as a point of reference. See also Wikipedia:Help desk#Multiple references.

Given that, how should we go about the multiple reference situation in this article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It is a very in-elegant solution to something that is only a borderline problem. Three or four in-line citations in a row isn't really a major if it is rare in the article. If we do think these particular instances are an issue that need to be addressed, my preference would be to: a) review the citations to make sure they are all actually necessary; b) see if the sentence can be re-written to split up the citations; and c) use a more elegant ref-bundle with a clear explanation for why those particular references are being combined, rather than a generic "attributed to multiple references". - adamstom97 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, so which template should we use if there are more than at least four or five references? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that three or four citations are not that excessive. There is no policy or MOS requirement for when refs should be bundled together in a citation, and more often than not, it is ill-advised to technically "hide" these direct citations in a note that not everyone will be able to easily access ie on mobile versions of the site. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

it is ill-advised to technically "hide" these direct citations in a note that not everyone will be able to easily access ie on mobile versions of the site.

I'm not aware of any issues with viewing an {{efn}} in mobile browsers. Would you mind elaborating further? I just tested in Chrome on an iPhone, and didn't have any issues with this example. Also "hide" is certainly not Lord Sjones23 intent here, nor the intent of an efn. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Taking the above comments into consideration, if we're going to do a project-wide discussion on this multiple references issue, we can always ask on WT:FILM. I've started a discussion there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – I wouldn't bundle 3 or less citations, and personally wouldn't bundle 4 either, but if someone else wanted to bundle 4, I wouldn't stand in the way. It can be a cleaner look if done appropriately. See WP:CITEBUNDLE, which is part of a content guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have no issue with CITEBUNDLE, I gave it as one of my preferred options above. What Sjones23 did doesn't align with any of the examples at CITEBUNDLE and feels like a very lazy way to do it. A footnote that just says "attributed to multiple references" with a bunch of in-line citations in it is far less ideal than a proper CITEBUNDLE that states what is being bundled and presents all the citation details upfront.

  Sjones23, as I said at WT:FILM I don't think this is a project-wide issue. I am not advocating for us going around every film article to change this formatting. I think there are multiple valid ways to approach this issue and as a regular editor at the MCU articles I am expressing my opinion that we use a different approach here. That doesn't mean I want to change every other film article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. One thing I'm concerned about is that if we use a multiref template, some of the sources with the "ref name" tag will be split into two separate articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, usually a detailed write-up is nice to have in bundled citations, but occasionally that isn't necessary, such as when the sentence only contains a single claim that all cited sources support. In such cases, a simple bundling of multiple sources into one footnote works, as shown here with the sfnm template. At the core of CITEBUNDLE is the primary goal of reducing visual clutter, making articles "more readable" by bundling multiple citations "into a single footnote". --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  That would also be better than what Sjones23 did, though it is a format that is usually used for print sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  [...]it is a format that is usually used for print sources. In any case, I wonder which format should we use for the digital sources? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I think it will depend on how high up in the number count the citations are. [1][2][3][4] looks different from [100][101][102][103], and the difference gets bigger the more citations there are. Personally I think once you get over 5 or so bundling is perfectly fine regardless of nummeric value.★Trekker (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)