Talk:Spider-Man: One More Day

message: An editor has complained that the reception section is too biased.  While that's understandable given the mostly negative opinions there, I havn't seen any of the postive reviews he mentions (except Brandon Thomas on Newsarama which I plan to impliment - Have implimented).  That fact is that some things are notable for being bad and I think OMD is one of them.  The info I have added so far is sourced, and I welcome anybody to give links to any postive reviews here so I can impliment them.    Paul  730 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are big problems in the reception column. Several of the reviews sourced aren't written in a professional way. Regardless of how well these columnists usually write reviews, in almost every case here they have reverted to Spider-Man fanboy, complete with hyperbolic statements that expose their desire for everything to stay the same, and disgust at the notion of undoing any previous storyline they liked. All of those reviews basically put continuity above quality in their assessment of the storyline. Thomas' review is the only one that's written with any real coherence, which I think is a real shame because there IS an overwhelming sense of disappointment with this storyline and this article ought to fairly reflect it. Just because something is sourced does not make it a good source. What's more, there's too much focus put in this article toward how "bad" a few people thought it was, and not enough information (which is readily available on CBR and Newsarama) about how the storyline was devised, or what it really means. There doesn't even seem to be the most basic information about the numerous extra features each of the issues had.91.110.232.166 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only worked on the reception section, and I agree that the development section needs to be improved.  I've asked another editor for his opinion, and he told me that some aspects of the reception section are too personal; ie, they represent the personal feeling of the reviewer rather than comment on the story itself.  I plan to fix that to the best of my ability when I get a chance.  I'm sorry if you disagree with the reviewers opinions but that's how they reacted and we're just documenting that, we can't dismiss a reliable source just because you don't like what it says.  I'll go through the section and try to tidy it up.  If you have issues with the development section, you can always contribute some information or provide links to the information you mention.   Paul  730 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What do you mean?  There should be in-depth information about how the storyline was recieved, just as in film articles.   The reason the IGN stuff is so long is because there were three reviews by different critics.  There seem to be many claims that the reception section violates WP:NPOV, but rather than remove sourced information about negative reaction, why don't you include sourced information about positive reaction?  Nevertheless, I've tried to condense the section as much as possible and remove some overly detailed criticism which I agree didn't belong.  The quote box is also gone; although I thought it was an effective way of providing visual aid (walls of words are so boring), people seemed to think it highlighted negativity.   Paul  730 03:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: Given that "all previous comics count" except for married-life details, has there been official word on whether May still knows Peter is Spider-Man? --75.161.84.72 (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry doesn't know, although Peter still remembers him being the Goblin and having died. While working with S.H.I.E.L.D at the outbreak of Civil War when Spidey unmasked himself, Norman is most likely back in prison by this point. The newest arc had Spidey working with Wolverine for the Avengers, so it is safe to say that his history with the Avengers has not been erased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.204.165 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmentioned detail 

message: I corrected some spelling errors, and broke up several of the long, run-on paragraphs. I also removed a sentence here or there, but didn't do too much of that.  I do think that the article sub-sections (especially in the "Reception" section) are far too long and overly detailed. This should be an encyclopedia article, not a review for Newsrama or Wizard. Encyclopedia readers don't need to know every last detail about how everyone at IGN hates this arc or turn of events. It's also not the place for readers to battle out whether OMD is a good or bad thing. The article is supposed to have a NPOV. Jack Brooks (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it was a little long, and have tried to condense it a little (see my reply above at "Bias").  However, while it shouldn't be a review for Newsarama, I think it should be detailed.  Simply saying "IGN gave it 3/10" or "Newsarama hated it" isn't very informative, we should try to include detailed criticism (not necessarily negative).  I've removed some info personal to the reviewer ("I felt sick in my stomach" etc) and I think what's there is fine now.  Also, remember that IGN and Newsarama reviewed it several times by different people.  It's not a full paragraph of just one person's opinion.  I do agree 100% however that readers' original research ("Quesada should be fired", etc etc) must be kept out of it.    Paul  730 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderate changes 

message: Can I suggest that you include a slightly more detailed explanation as to why the storyline was so controversial in the Reception section? As it stands, it presents an excellent summary of the reaction to the storyline, but why it caused such a fuss is only partially explained, especially in the first paragraph. It's fine for someone already clued-in, but a reader unfamiliar with the universe (e.g. me), is left with only these vague hints. Please understand that I don't mean to sound so critical; you've done a bang-up job of keeping the article grounded amidst the controversy; I just think what it's all about could be a little clearer . All the best, Steve T  • C 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception/controversy 

message: What page does he appear on?  Thanks. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Early on in part two, I think - when Spider-Man visits the various scientists and mystics of the Marvel Universe. MultipleTom (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: High Evolutionary

message: Any chance of Gwen Stacy appearing now that this happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was planned but the writers vetoed it because her death is all sacred to comics.    Paul  730 21:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But don't be saddened, they've stated they're going to bring in a character called Glen Stacy! Oy, this will not end well. Oh wait: It didn't start well.58.175.169.47 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gwen Stacy

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this has been resolved - feel like a GA? :) BOZ (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: What work needs doing to take this to an A?
With all the input we got it was a pretty solid GA and so shouldn't need too much more work to shoot for a higher quality assessment.
The only thing that occurs to me is something BOZ raised: It'd be handy to have some primary references in the plot to indicate what events happened in which issue.
Anything else? (Emperor (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to cite the issues in the plot summary. What the article really needs is to include more coverage otuside of the comics press. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You do need to cite the issues or have I missed something? (Emperor (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The story itself is the primary source and subject. It's the same reason you don't need a footnotes when writing a plot summary for a film. Unless you're citing something that can't be found in the four issues of the story itself, there's no need to inline cite a description of the artistic work itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A film is a single work so it would be redundant to source something to it. This is clearly a different medium and it is useful to source which issue key events happened it. Is there a guideline which says we shouldn't provide primary sources for comics plot? (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing saying you shouldn't, but it's really unnecessary and kind of pointless (and kind of a waste of time), especially if you follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Contextual presentation. We're only dealing with four issues here (and they form one complete story called "One More Day" that is the article subject). The current summary is quite sufficient without citations, and I sure as hell wouldn't oppose the article at FAC because it didn't have them, for reasons I've explained before. Also, if there is information that is "likely to be challenged" (per our citing sources guidelines), citing the issues themselves doesn't solve that problem because we are supposed to be describing the issues in the first place, thus engaging the problem with an unhelpful redundancy. For comparisons' sake, the plot summary for Watchmen doesn't cite the issues, because we are summarizing the work as a whole from the primary document (all twelve issues that constitute the story that is the subjct of the article) in a clear, linear fashion. And that article passed FARC back in October just fine with the plot summary written that way, because the summary is simply a description of the work itself, as all good plot summaries should be. Only cite something in the plot summary if you don't think it would be clear to someone sitting down and reading all four issues in order. In theory, if the plot summary is well-written enough, any citations from the issues themselves should be wholly needless. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Since when has Spider-Man been a consistently heroic character? His flaws were endemic from the very beginning. Sanderson's argument about lives left unsaved by Spider-Man's selfish decision could equally apply to "Spider-Man No More". MultipleTom (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onwards to an A? 

message: Anyway to keep things moving on... any more material?
I found a long commentary from Peter Sanderson and extracted some key bits (although fishing through it you might spot something else:
On reading the conclusion of “One More Day” in Amazing Spider-Man #545, I wasn’t as upset about Peter Parker’s deal with Mephisto as I thought I’d be. Spider-Man is the everyman as superhero, and how would you or I react if the only way to save a loved one’s life was to make a bargain with the devil? Could you justify allowing a loved one to die by refusing to make such a deal?
Moreover, I like the grand, operatic romanticism of Mary Jane’s speech to Peter that not even the devil can destroy their love for one another, and that even if he makes them forget what they meant to each other, they will inevitably be reunited. It puts me in mind of the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or stories about reincarnated lovers reunited, from Hawkman to Dark Shadows, which deal with a similar concept.
But still, I remain repulsed by the idea of Spider-Man making a deal with the devil. In his CBR interview Quesada points out that “One More Day” is based on the myth of Faust. Yes, indeed, and the point of Faust and the many variations on it is that making a deal with the devil is always wrong.
...
Therefore, the truly heroic choice for Spider-Man to make may have been to resign himself to letting Aunt May die rather than provide Mephisto with the opportunity to wreak even greater harm.
...
So there is one consequence of Peter and Mary Jane’s satanic bargain that is arguably worse than the death of his elderly aunt: it’s like an abortion via black magic. And just how many lives would Spider-Girl have saved if she existed in the “mainstream” Spider-Man’s reality?
...
Furthermore, to my knowledge, Mephisto has never before demonstrated such power to restructure reality and even resurrect the dead (Harry). But there are plenty of Marvel characters who do, who could have been used to retcon the marriage without morally sullying Peter and Mary Jane’s characters. Over at his online forum, John Byrne has explained how he and writer Howard Mackie would have used the alien Shaper of Worlds to undo the marriage. I find myself leaning towards using the Grandmaster, who has been established as having powers to control time, space, life and death.
*Sanderson, Peter Comics in Context #210: Divorce, Marvel Style, Quick Stop Entertainment, January 21, 2008
The Newsarama link needed adjusting, here it is:
*Joe Fridays: Week 49, Newsarama, May 5, 2006
If I find anything else I'll drop it in. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has Spider-Man been a consistently heroic character? His flaws were endemic from the very beginning. Sanderson's argument about lives left unsaved by Spider-Man's selfish decision could equally apply to "Spider-Man No More". MultipleTom (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More material

message: i think they should mention how disliked and unpopular this decision was  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.55.72 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad press 

message: After reading through the shear length of this overwritten article, I checked the sources particularly for the "reception" section. Only a few of the "reviews" or opinions were from credible sources. Most of these quotations are ripped straight from message boards from various forums! All of those poorly sourced opinions and quotations need to be ripped down, the negative and the positive. It's unbalanced, unprofessional, and it smacks of a handful of zealots basically writing up their own opinions on message boards and then copy-pasting their own words right here onto a wikipedia article page. This article needs to be stripped down by someone who is responsible in their methods. I'd do it myself, but I know that whoever posted those slews of message board and forum quotations will simply put them back into the article again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.39.213 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Really poor sources, quotations from forums and message boards need to be removed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spider-Man: One More Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100421001321/http://comics.ign.com:80/articles/108/1084429p1.html to http://comics.ign.com/articles/108/1084429p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spider-Man: One More Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080124131633/http://www.channel4.com:80/news/articles/arts_entertainment/film_tv/spiderman+cuts+his+ties/1361467 to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/film_tv/spiderman+cuts+his+ties/1361467
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spider-Man: One More Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815224222/http://forum.newsarama.com:80/showthread.php?t=141756 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141756
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: .Adpjmpj,g.D.Jpdg.?Gagdp&??Pgdgjg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.80.84.7 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spidermam