# Talk:Spider-Man 3

As with any other article on Wikipedia, Spider-Man 3 should have a high standard of attribution.  When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors.  To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly.  (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.)  Also, the citation must be an attributable source.  Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous — the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth.  Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc.  If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review)

Why is there a plot summary in the lead section? --Codrdan (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, typically there is a brief plot summary in the lead, similar to how the back of DVDs have a small plot summary. It gives you an idea of what the movie is about without getting into too much detail. I don't know if it's a WP:FILM standard to give a small plot summary in the lead of a film article. I suggest, if it concerns you, looking into it and, if it is and you have an issue with it, bringing it up over there. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, why is this page locked?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.62.193 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 

as they both reprise their roles from spider man 2 i think they should be added as minor characters, i know the girl is Mageina Tovah and she plays Ursula Ditkovich, but i dont know who plays her father, anyway they were both in spiderman 2 also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.7.177 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 

I've been asked to look at the section on the aborted sequel and the reboot film.
After reviewing what has been going on for the past 2 days the following is fairly clear:

IP 99.192.69.124 and -5- have been edit warring over the section up to the point that both broached WP:3RR.
Neither IP 99.192.69.124 nor Rio de Janiero God have provided a reason by way of edit summary or on the talk page as to why the section was added.
Up to this point no one has suggested or taken the initiative to discuss the matter here on the talk page. Since the section is apparently contentious, that should have happened by now. WP:BRD outlines the generally accepted etiquette here: If a bold edit has been reverted it should be discussed instead of edit warred over. General practice is for one of the following to happen:
The reverting editor to make the suggestion for a talk page discussion on the first reversion if it affects a fair section of the article;
The reverted editor, if they are familiar with the process, to take the initiative to go to the talk page if the first reversion didn't mention it instead of re-doing their edit; or
The reverting editor to definitely suggest it, if not taking the initiative themselves, on the 2nd revert.
The information in the section - [1] - is unsourced statements. Even if it were retained in the article it would either need sourcing or it would eventually be removed as either speculation or original research.
Similar sections do not exist in the articles on the previous installments of the film series - Spider-Man (film) and Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man (film series), which covers the franchise, does have a section on both the cancelled 4 and the reboot.
Additionally there are points of fall out on the user talk pages that should be addressed:

User talk:99.192.69.124#Response - The user talk page is not the place for this discussion. -5- should have posted their reason for the removal here, not directly to the IP. It looks like it was result of the IP posting to -5- directly - User talk:-5-#Spiderman 3 - but even then the discussion should have been directed back to this talk page.
User talk:Rio de Janiero God#September 2010 - While this is a reasonable template to use since the information isn't sourced, it is at odds with -5-'s reasoning presented to the IP. Again, this is why that discussion needs to be on this talk page. The reasoning can be pointed to as attached to the article instead of presenting an inconsistent, if not capricious, reason for removal.
User talk:-5- - There are a couple of things here:
Rio de Janiero God's initial post - [2] is a bit border line. There are 2 edit summaries from -5- pointing out that the section isn't appropriate to this article. That normally would indicate good faith editing on their part which precludes calling it vandalism. But the edit summaries stop and there is no discussion on the talk page related to the section. It is possible for later edits to be seen as potential vandalism. It is odd though for a new editor though to effectively quote a warning template to try and shut another editor down.
The "Only warning" section - [3] and [4] posted by Rio de Janiero God. Both of those are abuses of Wikipedia warning templates and appear to only have been made to intimidate -5-. It doesn't matter if the editor originally posting them removed them - [5] - or the editor they targeted did - [6] - their use in this way is inexcusable.
The long and the short of it is that if there is a real desire to include the section, discus it here first. But take in that it is at odds with the other film articles and that it is covered, and in a better way, on the film series article.
- J Greb (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I was also asked to weigh in on this because I have worked ont he page in the past.  J Greb has the right of the information in question; the reboot belongs on the film series article and is already well sourced there.  We've long had a WP:CRYSTAL problem with this article (even before the announcement of the reboot) and this particular round of edits feels like an escalation of that issue.  Millahnna (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
My reason for reverting the edit is because normally, when a sequel is announced to a film, they start talking about it on the previous film. Since the film was cancelled, i felt the topic should be talked about what would have happened if the film was made. Now i have no problem with editors removing information, but -5- had no warranted reason to remove useful information. Rio de Janiero God  —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC). 

If this had been a standalone film instead of part of a franchise, then having a section on a sequel might make sense. But such a section would need to have reliable and verifiable sources for the information. Lacking that, it would eventually get pulled out as either unsourced or original research.
However, since this is part of a franchise, and there is an article on the franchise, the need for a section on the sequel is much, much less. Since the franchise article covers the aborted sequel and the reboot in more detail and incorporate reliable references, the need for the info to be here drops to nil.
There is also a big concern about edit warring on the article instead of discussing the inclusion. Bluntly: if the inclusion is contested, the material is discussed on the talk page to see if there is a consensus to include it. You do not get to keep adding it in while it is being discussed. If the consensus is to have the material here, fine, it can be added back with sources. If the consensus is that having the info at the franchise article only, also fine. Clear enough?
- J Greb (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the picture of the movie is flipped. it should be regular spidey looking at black suited spidey in the window  — Preceding unsigned comment added by D joker27 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 

So the DVD got it wrong too then? Sean 21:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/spiderman3/titleSite.swf
http://www.sonypictures.jp/movies/spiderman/images/flash/header_player.swf
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.spiderman3-lefilm.com/push.swf was not successfully archived, so the French site is lost
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary is currently 786 words. Granted this is over WP:FILMPLOT's guideline of 400-700 words, but that is a guideline, not a requirement, and there are many film articles with summaries more deserving of attention than this one IMO. I already made a pass at this summary and I'm not sure how else it can be shortened right now. Frankly, 786 doesn't seem too bad to me, especially given that it was much longer before my pass. If anyone would like to trim it further, please go ahead, but I don't think it's productive at this point to tag the summary without also making an attempt to reduce the summary, or at least suggest how it can be shortened. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I hadn't seen this post. We need to have the tag there to alert editors to the fact it needs to be done; otherwise, it's too easy to let it slip through the cracks. As to the distinction between guideline and requirement, we're supposed to adhere to guidelines unless there's some specific reason not to, such as a convoluted non-linear film or Berlin Alexanderplatz. The very large range of 400 to 700 words is designed so that we have the very flexibility we need. Most plots need much less than 700 words; 700 words is a limit we're asked to respect. And Spider-Man 3 really isn't so complex that we can't tell the plot in fewer than 700 words.
Also, it doesn't matter if other film articles violate guidelines; that doesn't mean it's OK to do it, just that they haven't been attended to yet. Also, we want to voluntarily adhere to guidelines since it prevents arguments — because everyone who's a fan of one movie or another would like to have the longest plot synopsis possible. Finally, as a general courtesy, we don't summarily remove other editors' tags that adhere to guidelines. As a community, we want to foster respect for guidelines, which have arisen after, in many cases, years of trial-and-error consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of all this, but my point is that if you're going to tag it, then at this point, I have to ask...do you have any ideas as to how the plot can be further reduced? I took a stab at it, and I'm not sure what else can be done. As it is a guideline and not a policy that we're talking about, I feel that as we're only talking about 85 words now, it's not unreasonable to ask that anyone advocating the tag also be willing to contribute to helping foster conditions under which it can be removed.
In other words, and I'll admit I'm probably not being entirely objective - this seems like a case where being slightly longer than guidelines recommend seems reasonable to me. If you're going to advocate that it isn't, I feel you should also be able to come up with ideas for what can be trimmed down at this point.
I apologize if I haven't worded this as diplomatically as I ought; I hope I at least got the gist of my meaning across alright. I'm certainly not meaning to antagonize anyone, and would very much like to hear from other editors as well. Doniago (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem; I write and edit for a living, so I'll give it a shot. It's just that we're all volunteers and it's not always easy to find time to do it all oneself — that's why we put calls out, via tags, to our fellow editors. But as I said, no biggie. I've got some time now. And may I say thank you for your graciousness and calmness in this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. It's just a Plot tag, certainly not worth getting bent out of shape about. Anyway, I see you trimmed it down further; looking good! Thanks for working with me on this! Doniago (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Always my pleasure to work with congenial, collegial fellow editors! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read all the article but I do have some concern regarding the cast section. The cast section used to have more information then it does now that was encyclopedic. Did they get moved on somewhere else on the article? Also that image of Harry Osborn doesn't seem to meet the requirements of fair use images. Jhenderson 777 15:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a revision example. I haven't checked all of the revisions but where did these useful commentary go? Jhenderson 777 15:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see what you meant at first, but you seem to have been talking about the longer paragraphs citing how Church, Grace and Howard got their roles and background on their work. Yeah, you're right — that sort of brief backgrounding is typical of at least WPC movie articles, such as Iron Man 2. Some of the stuff in the older version you link to really needs polishing and a little rewriting, though — some of it's a bit puffy and fan-magaziney, and that might have been the reason someone trimmed them way back. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"A reboot of the trilogy was released five years later."
Should be changed to: 
"A reboot of the franchise was released five years later."
Anyone looking up the definitions will agree. The specific trilogy was not re-created, nor is it being recreated. The FRANCHISE has been rebooted, bearing too many differences to be specifically re-doing the original trilogy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.95.107 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 

https://collider.com/spider-man-3-sam-raimi/
Majinsnake (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Give me rent. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 25#Give me rent until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Give me your rent. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#Give me your rent until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door! and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door! until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 21:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

At what part of this page do you guys think would be perfect for mentioning that there have been campaigns and petitions for a director’s cut of this movie to be made and released? And are there any sources to confirm it? Austin012599 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Without the latter, the former is immaterial. DonIago (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I did this section. I put sources before it was remove. It could be put in "Legacy" section though. 178.51.238.177 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The sources you provided are not reliable, as mentioned in the edit summaries left by editors when your edits were reverted. DonIago (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The campaign itself doesn't seem to be notable either. It's not comparable to the #ReleasetheSnyderCut campaign at all. —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is a bit long, more than 600 words. Is that really "a summary of its most important contents" as the guidelines recommend or could it be made a lot shorter? Compare and contrast with the lead section when this article was GA reassessed. Perhaps reconsider what key points might be most important to ordinary encyclopedia readers might need to know, rather than the details editors and existing fans care most about. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)