# Talk:Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

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,[1] 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)

The previous discussion you’re linking just reads like you incessantly complaining about navboxes *to yourself* as opposed to a forged consensus on reducing navboxes. Any navbox the page in question is linked on is included. I do not see what is low relevance about including navboxes towards the awards the film has received. Just frankly comes off to me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 14:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Until recently all this listcruft was in the Accolades list article, but it was removed from there too. [2] BIDI has been used as an excuse to add these navboxes everywhere, but there has never been any such requirement. These hidden tables are never shown to nearly half of all users, and the WP:NAVBOX guidelines make it clear that they are not required. That they are immediately hidden goes to show how low relevance they are and editors have been unwilling to explain discuss and gain consensus to include this listcruft. Editors have been persistently unwilling to argue for local consensus that the guidelines clearly say they need. The past discussion was brought to WP:MOSFILM where they even grudgingly acknowledge that there is no requirement to include all the hidden navboxes.
Please stop for a moment and ask yourself if these hidden tables really server any benefit to even the fraction of desktop based encyclopedia readers who ever get shown them? -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The complaint brought to Project film [[3]]. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, you brought this complaint up five years ago and never garnered any consensus. The onus would be on you, who is asserting low relevance, to convince a majority group of people that excessive and hidden navboxes are superfluous and aren’t meriting inclusion. You made your bold removal of them, was reverted so now it’s needing discussion, either at the MOS for navboxes or at WP:FILM, but this standard can’t be arbitrarily applied to this one page. Rusted AutoParts 14:59, 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)

Not required doesn’t immediate equal not allowed. People have clearly considered them necessarily if in the five years since you first began talking about this they still remain or get added back. Rusted AutoParts 15:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Even if people believe a few Navoboxes are useful where is the limit? How many is too many? People seem to think it is fine to add an arbitrarily list of of awards, but also think it is not relevant enough to actually show any of it. These awards Navboxes fail WP:HIDDEN and they fail WP:UNDUE but people who keeping add Navboxes seem to love lists more than they care about the first principles of making an encyclopedia article that is actually useful to readers.
You're arguing for the inclusion of 17 hidden tables, few of which are actually even mentioned in the Accolades section of this article (so about half of them already fail BIDI). -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems only 3 of the awards Navboxes even manage to pass BIDI. They aren't mentioned in the article body or Accolades section, that makes all the other hidden tables of links not relevant even by the low standards of the BIDI section of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Rereading the guidelines I may have misunderstood BIDI, but relevance still matters and only 3 of those awards are even mentioned anywhere in this article and therefore at most only 3 are WP:DUE a Navbox. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD. You really need to discuss the issue before continuing to enforce edits like this. Rusted AutoParts 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
What part do you want to discuss? "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)
Again relevance matters. WP:NAVBOX "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." It is not clear why this article (or any other article) would need to include multiple different Sony Navboxes[4] containing a hidden table of low relevance links. Futhermore is it clear why if yet another Navboxes is worth including that an editor would further hide an already hidden table of low relevance links inside yet another hidden table.[5]  Please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain _why_ yet another Navbox is needed. -- 109.76.138.125 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Relevance still matters. WP:NAVBOX "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." This edit needs to be reverted(diff) as the {{American Cinema Editors Award for Best Edited Animated Feature Film}} is not actually mentioned anywhere in this article, it is not among the few most important award that are mentioned in the Awards section. There is nothing to suggest that Navboxes are exempt from WP:INDISCRIMINATE either. 
I would also strongly encourage reverting of this edit(diff) to show instead of hiding the allegedly useful and relevant Navboxes instead of collapsing them under yet another layer of unnecessary tables to even more ignored by less than half of readers who might ever actually see them. -- 109.76.129.112 (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Change source #74 link from a CSS file to https://web.archive.org/web/20201111184144/http://www.albertomielgo.com/spiderman/2018/12/19/d9zhz04jz8ddc22m0rcduzm56vw4fd Timotheeis (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s still on Fubo and FX 74.14.134.105 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 18:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of 'Animation and Design', change "The number had reached 142 animators by August 2018 and at one point to 177 animators" to "The number had reached 142 animators by August 2018 and at one point reached/hit/whatever appropriate verb you like 177 animators". (The 'to' was presumably continuing from the previous sentence where the number was referenced as 'growing to' certain values. This is a new sentence and the verb is now 'reached' so 'to' no longer fits grammatically) IAmSerine (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done  twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zingo156@Rusted AutoParts@Barry Wom Hello. Usually when people do major changes to a paragraph, especially one as the lead paragraph, an edit summary should be expected. I see absolutely no effort in ellaborating why was the paragraph trimmed like that, as up until a couple of days, it seemed fine.
What exactly is wrong with this that warrants such a major trimming?
"Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a 2018 American animated superhero film based on Marvel Comics featuring the character Miles Morales / Spider-Man. Directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman from a screenplay by Phil Lord and Rothman, it is the first animated film in the Spider-Man franchise and the first film in the Spider-Verse franchise, which is set in a shared multiverse of alternate universes called the "Spider-Verse". Produced by Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation in association with Marvel Entertainment and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing, it stars Shameik Moore as Miles Morales, alongside Jake Johnson, Hailee Steinfeld, Mahershala Ali, Brian Tyree Henry, Lily Tomlin, Luna Lauren Vélez, John Mulaney, Kimiko Glenn, Nicolas Cage and Liev Schreiber. The film's story follows Miles as he becomes the new Spider-Man and joins other Spider-People from various parallel universes who team up to save his universe from the Kingpin."
Now turned to:
"Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a 2018 American animated superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man. Directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman from a screenplay by Phil Lord and Rothman, and starring Shameik Moore as Miles Morales, with Jake Johnson, Hailee Steinfeld, Mahershala Ali, Brian Tyree Henry, Lily Tomlin, Luna Lauren Vélez, John Mulaney, Kimiko Glenn, Nicolas Cage and Liev Schreiber in supporting roles, the film's story follows Miles as he becomes the new Spider-Man and joins other Spider-People from various parallel universes who team up to save his universe from the Kingpin. The first animated film in the Spider-Man franchise, it was produced by Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation in association with Marvel Entertainment."
I do not see what exactly was wrong or problematic with previous version. The new proposal has many issues. First, "based on the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man". Why was "Miles Morales" removed? It is necessary to specify what version of the character the film is based on, so that any reader is not confused or possibly mistake it for other versions of the character, especially since we have seen the Peter Parker incarnation of the character before. The next sentence is now extremely long. It mentions director, writers and the entire billed cast and the plot summary all in the same sentence! Did you at least notice that and made an effort to correct it? I also see no issue in: 
"it is the first animated film in the Spider-Man franchise and the first film in the Spider-Verse franchise, which is set in a shared multiverse of alternate universes called the "Spider-Verse"."
The fact that it is the first animated film in the franchise should not be so far down. It is one of the most noteworthy aspects of the film. I do not see it as violating WP:FANCRUFTguidelines. OK maybe the "alternate universes" part seems unnecessary, but the "first film in the Spider-Verse franchise" should be absolutely left and there is no issue in leaving. In that case, would mentioning   the X film in the Skywalker Saga or the X installment in the Sequel/Prequel trilogy in the Star Wars articles also be a case of "Fancruft" and thus, needing to be removed? 
Thanks. Joy040207 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I am more than certain your edit was first reverted by reason of FANCRUFT. You can object to that by coming here, not restoring the fancruft and telling them to take it to the talk page.  Rusted AutoParts 20:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
But what exactly was "reason of FANCRUFT"? I still need some reasoning as to why was there such a major change to something that was fine just until a couple days ago. I was just restoring to previous version after Zingo156's major edit without an edit summary. Joy040207 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Lead sections need to be succinct and to the point. The edits you're pushing for adds in a bunch of guff about multiverses and spiderverses, stuff FANCRUFT makes clear as to why it should be avoided. Additionally, edits such as adding "Spider-Man" to Miles's name is superfluous, and is not how his Wiki page is titled, nor is how he's credited in the films. Also wades into an inherent "goes without saying" territory that he's Spider-Man, or in this films case becomes Spider-Man. Rusted AutoParts 03:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
The stuff you're trying to add (multiverses and alternate universes and such) is pretty much the definition of fancruft - material that will "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan", as the essay puts it. It may be of interest to the fanboys, but not to the general reader.
The "first film in the Spider-Verse franchise" should be absolutely left - no it shouldn't. The details of that are already covered in the final paragraph of the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)