Talk:Spider-Man/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spider-Man in the Dark Reign

I started an article about the American Son storyline. I need help to continue editing it. Leader Vladimir

Symbiote

Would someone who can please add the {{Template:Symbiote Family and Hosts}} template to this article? He is one of the more notable hosts of the Venom symbiote.

Help requested

Can someone tell me... whether any comic has ever explained this... why, if Spider-Man has so many rich and powerful close personal friends, did they never help out his pitiful financial situation? I mean, Human Torch helped him make a car, but it seems like Reed Richards and Tony Stark have enough spare cash lying around to sponsor his hero-ing a little... so he and Mary Jane don't have to sell their blood to get by... (Modern era notwithstanding, that's something else entirely.. what with the shiny gold and red suit.. and .. betrayal..) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

No dorks here, only contributors in my appraisal. In answer to your question 75.72.21.221, since he's not a supporting character in another character's comicbook, he would have no unnecessary attachments to those whom you had mentioned. Now a question: How is this relevant toward this particular article?Mister Fax 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How would an explanation of why Parker often struggles for money, despite having wealthy friends & being a fairly inventive genius, not be relevant to the article? --Dr Archeville 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like any analysis would be original research unless there's something in-universe we can site, like "Parker has refused financial help from his wealthy friends [footnote here]."

And I don't know about you, but in big cities especially it's not surprising for struggling people, especially in journalism and the arts, to have wealthy friends. You don't ask them for money because that can ruin a friendship. And wealthy friends don't offer because that's demeaning and insulting to the struggling friend. That's such a prosaic part of real life. What I'd like to know is how a supposed supermodel like M.J. (as opposed to a regular, non-famous working model) just disappears and there's no agent, no publicist, no personal assistant, no business manager, no agency head, etc. in the picture. --Tenebrae 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked if anyone can give me an explanation from the comics. I wouldn't put something so unsupported in the article without that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

My uncle and I love Spider man comics and I asked him that same question! He said that they never said anything about that. Hope that helped! Spider-freak 17 6/4/7:28

just to point out.... none of the rich "friends" pete has know he is peter parker.they only know him as spidey. and just to tell you how would it sound if spidey asked for money? think about it........ artha14 —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

minor edits for someone to fix:

"...in the upcoming fidouchenal issue..." (emphasis added)

"He has also used an invention of Ben Reilly's, a clone of Peter Parker, called "impact webbing": a pellet that explodes on impact into a wrap-around net of webbing." Sounds like the clone of Peter Parker is called "impact webbing." 71.198.100.237 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the impact webbing bit.--Tempest115 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

hyphen

The hyphen is very important, unique, and often omitted. This should be mentioned in the article, as I think it really irks a lot of us web-heads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I Agree, this should be put in. I can't find a source though, but I remember reading that it was because Stan Lee didn't want Spidey confused with Superman. Thus the hyphen. If anyone can fine a good source for the reason, please add it. I hate when people spell it without the hyphen, maybe I'm ocd? 8<. Also, sign your comments so people know who you are. Use four tildes. Bryse 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He (Stan) said that in his book Excelsior! Anakinjmt 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. In the trailer for the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, Peter Parker says he can sum up his summer vacation with "one hyphenated word, Spider-Man!" --CommanderWiki35 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also hate it when people don't capitalize the 'm.' I have had to fix that in so many minor edits I could probably have a full profile just for that. Freak104 14:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ya it seruisly urks use true belivers. why dont they fix that? its so anouying artha14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article. Scanning over the history, I see very few contributions from anonymous editors that were not quickly reverted. I suspect that this page is a magnet for abuse, and unless the regular contributors to this page enjoy reverting bad edits, I don't see much point in unprotecting it. However, if anyone has an objection to the semi-protection, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll remove it. -- Samuel Wantman 21:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I object.... I do like reverting pointless vandalism, it gives me a good laugh 8-P. Nah i am kidding, hey um mabey you can look at the other popular marvel char pages to see if they need to be protected.Phoenix741 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave a list on my talk page. I'm not a comics person. I have no idea who popular marvel chars. are. -- Samuel Wantman 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Powers & Fighting Style

I have long felt that Spider-Man's unique and extremely effective fighting style is rooted in his paricular combination of powers. This might be stating the obvious, but I mean in a very specific way. Many super heroes and villians have superhuman strength (usually interpreted as also facilitating superhuman leaping) and agility. What makes Spidey different is wall-crawling and especially Spider-sense. Spidey's style is among the most mobile and non-linear, always leaping and swinging at high speeds in rapidly changing directions. Wall crawling means Spidey can and does leap from all directions even straight down, raining blows from all directions while avoiding trouble. Spider-man's strength, agility and speed are all integrated in a special manner by his Spider-sense which defines his unique combination of the choatic and precision is both attack and defence. Spidey fights like no other, throwing himself through danger not knowing in advance what will happen but protected by split seconds and millimetres through his intuiting. I think this is a vital aspect of Spider-Man may not have been brought immediately and that some writers and artists portray better than others. Mark Bagley's Amazing Spider-Man is among the best. The (seperate) occasions when Spidey knocked out the Hulk and Firelord are good examples. A great battle was the full issue fight with Black Tarantula (drawn by Joe Casey?). Spidey despaired of victory, fearing Black Tarantula was like a 'super-charged version of myself'- Spidey lacked his usual 'edge' against characters of such strength.

I think this a brief word on this should be included.. actually it already is- I just re-read it. Sorry.

Spider-Man KO'd the Hulk, which issue was this and which issue was the Black Tarantula, and Spidey rocks.

Spidey Diapers

Spider-Man is the mascot for Pampers diapers. I think that should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't know where. Coop41 08:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be what you're thinking of. -- Jayunderscorezero 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is new, yea if there are sources, it would make sense to put it inPhoenix741 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No Images Without the Mask?

There should be at least one picture of Peter Parker as himself and not his websliging alter-ego. --Panelmyth107 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tempest115 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at Fictional history of Spider-Man --(RossF18 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

meh, I think there should be one on the main page also.Phoenix741 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

your right. only people who read the comics actually know what he looks like in the comic. artha14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Moshikal

Despite my attempts to dialog with him, this editor continues, without ever providing a rationale, to remove the only art in this article by Spider-Man co-creator Steve Ditko. It would be unencyclopedic to not have a single piece of artwork by the character's co-creator.

In addition to his silence and his refusal (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moshikal Contributions page) to give edit summaries, User:Moshikal is not editing in good faith nor acting responsibily --Tenebrae 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed, but I moved them around so the pic of the green goblin is closer to the enemies section, seems to make sense to put it there.Phoenix741 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

About Spidey and The Fly

I recall reading an interview (from the Steve Ditko Collector, I think) wherein Ditko brought to Stan's attention that the early Kirby Spider-Man did indeed resemble The Fly, both in costume and concept. Ditko was supposed to ink it which is how he saw the work. According to Ditko, Lee recommended that Steve only retain the name "Spider-Man" and that he start from scratch. I know it maybe splitting hairs but the key is that the final product is the result of Ditko,Lee and Kirby's efforts. In the same interview,Ditko mentioned that Peter Parker, Aunt May and Uncle Ben "...were already there." I think this makes Kirby a "co-creator". If Jerry Robinson can be considered the "creator" of the Joker, even though his version wasn't used, then isn't Kirby elegible for the same consideration regarding Spidey? Just wondering. The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard ferrell (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Top Ten most intelligent fictional characters

According to BusinessWeek, Peter Parker is listed as one of the top ten most intelligent fictional characters in American comics. Smartest Superheroes Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be semi-protected again.

Once the protection was let off, vandalism on this page went up ALOT, we need to fix this.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man IS A NINJA

Seriously, stop taking Category:Fictional ninjas out of it.

He's more of a ninja than half the other people on that goddamn list, so stop removing it.

can you give some sort of source??-- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Manga-Verse spider-man is a ninja, not to mention the way he dodges, and alot of his moves are based of ninjitsu. Not to mention that most of his alternates have a ninja attachment in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.74.45 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will give you the fact that mangaverse spidy is a ninja, but this article is NOT about mangaverse spidey, it is about 616 spidey, and since 616 is NOT a ninja, that does not belong here. Also saying that his moves make him a ninja is point of view.-- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also point of view to label a character as being something just because you personally feel it applies to the character. The mangaverse Spider-Man is just another Spider-Man from an alternate reality. The mangaverse Spider-Man could be given three heads and eight arms and it'd have no influence or bearing over the Earth-616 version of Spider-Man whatsoever. Also, watch the language and keep the discussion civil. Otherwise, take it to a fan forum. The internet's loaded with them.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just jumping in here. It's noteworthy, that we're not comparing Spider-man to an actual Ninja. Rather, a fictional ninja, which does take the legend and move it around a bit. Now that that's out there: His costume, is similar to a ninjas, and how he demonstrates fictional ninja ability. Also note worthy, Spider-man has shown more ninja-like prowress compared to alot of the characters on the list, and even has the look of a ninja alot more. Moving away from visuals, however: Although for a tiny tiny few frames, he has run on water for a small bit, not very far, but enough to be mentionable. Ninjas also are known for climbing walls, with their hands, or a rope(web), as well as Spider-mans foot area bearing resembelance to the ninja footing. 99.228.56.169 (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing him as a ninja based on your own interpretation violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Doczilla (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Marvel Comics doesn't, never has, nor likely ever will consider him to be or categorize him as a ninja. I'm no expert on the subject, but isn't the common perception of ninjas as being trained martial artists that were typically used as assassains, thieves, and spies? Strictly speaking, Spider-Man doesn't really fall under any of those categories. As for the black costume, I can dress in black, climb up a wall using a rope, and strike a martial arts pose but those things don't make me a ninja. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While realizing that the majority of this article deals with the 616 Spidey, isn't it about all Spideys? Not sure that would qualify the category (in fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't), I'm just throwing that out there. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is about 616 Spider-man, with a section on Spidys from other worlds, but when it comes to catagories, we only deal with 616 spider-man.-- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories are pretty much devoted only to the mainstream universe's depiction of characters. No reason to turn that all upside down just over alternate versions, most of which only make one or two appearances tops. There's a small section on the Mangaverse version in the Alternate versions of Spider-Man article. Granted, it's not much more than a blurb, but I don't personally know anyone that was a fan of the Mangaverse. I know next to nothing about the Mangaverse version, don't really care to either I suppose. Evidently, there aren't many editors that have much info on that particular version, otherwise I'd figure that there'd be more information on him.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spidey is NOT a ninja. How do I know? My spider sense says so.

Matthew Laffert (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since he has never been depicted AS a Ninja, nor have we ever been informed he was a ninja, or recieved training in the arts of the ninja, then we can't say he was a ninja. Heck, it would be like saying some little kids are ninjas because they have black pajamas and like to act like the powerrangers after watching some of their episodes early in the morning on the weekend! Corrupt one (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man hides in the shadows. he is like a super spy. in one issue of ultimate spider-man he tracked Nick Fury for hours without him knowing. he wheres a mask. spidey IS a ninja artha14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man is not a ninja. He hates ninjas. This was stated multiple times in New Avengers. If he was a ninja, he would hate himself. Rau's Speak Page 00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rau J. If you can provide the issues numbers, we can finally end this nonsense. Unless someone can state that WAS depicted AS a ninja, and not just LIKE a ninja, we can't claim he is one. Also, as far as I know, he has never studied ninjistu (or however you spell it), the art of the ninja. Claiming he IS a ninja just because he resembles one to SOME peoples imagination is OR.

For those people who are insisting he IS one, here is a challenge for you: show us any issue, episode, or storyline where he is depicted AS a ninja. THAT is your only hope of getting it included in the article. Otherwise, let this matter rest. Corrupt one (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the exact issue, but I found a later reference to his hating ninjas. In New Avengers issue #27 page 21:

Spider-Man: Yay! Ninjas! I love Ninjas!

Wolverine: You said you hated ninjas.

Spider-Man: Ah, Logan, that was before the House of M and our little Civil War. In retrospect, I kinda like fighting Ninjas.

The full quote goes on to how Luke and Peter like the matching outfits and how if they could have matching outfits, he wants to have Doctor Strange's. Rau's Speak Page 00:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Brand New Day

According to this picture I found, Spider-Man still unmasked during Civil War, but no one remembers who was under the mask.

http://www.marvel.com/i/content/2068125867_full9733597.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenedisoverthere (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone in this discussion, I mean the entire page, is accepting Brand New Days events as sort of natural evolution. Why? Where is character evolution now? Where are Avengers past battles? Where friends and enemies, I mean those with a true story behind? What Marvel did? I just read the comics today given I'm italian, I don't know if I will be able to accept it.87.2.53.216 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about the issue which was previously discussed, but I thought it was noteworthy that in Amazing Spider-Man # 569 (2008), when Norman Osborn confronts Peter about his connection to Spider-Man, Peter thinks to himself that Norman "doesn't remember anymore. No one does." Does this imply, as I think it does, that Peter remembers at least something about reality as it was prior to One More Day/Brand New Day?--BigBang616 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, its just another plot hole that will have to be explained when Marvel puts a good Spider-Man on a once-a-month title.(I'm not saying that Dan isn't good, hes just not good as Spider-Man) *SIGN* 09:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a plot hole. When I read the issue, I thought so, but when I re-read the issue I thought more about it. Perhaps this is their way of letting us know that things are slowing going to head back to normal. Also, I don't know about you, but I like the 3-issue-a-month format. So far the stories have been really good (if you set aside the fact that Mary Jane and Peter are not married and get past it) and they have all made me want to read the next issue as soon as possible and if it went back to the original once-a-month format that would be harder. Also, when there were three or four concurrently running Spider-Man series I always had something of a hard time wondering how each title fit in with the other if they're all supposed to occur in the Earth-616 universe. The one main title keeps it all together and allows Marvel to still make the same amount of money from one title. Also, Dan Slott and the rest of Spidey's new brain trust have all done a wonderful job on the series. While I don't agree with the dissolution of Peter and Mary Jane's marriage, I do feel that given the situation they're doing some great work.--BigBang616 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Abilities

The web shooter should be removed from the Abilities list, or put as "He posses a man-made web shooter capable of shooting out synthetic webs made by himself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.14.91 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think because of BND, he doesnt have those anymore. Even though that doesnt make sense. Rau J16 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said they are man- made? Don't mess with me, the Great Matt Laffert!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that pete made the web shooters is proof of that. Rau J16 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the stingers that he has and the jacked up physical strength? Are they gone as well?Odin's Beard (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong! no, no no. Peter never made the web shooters!!! Where did you get your facts from?

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete made his web shooters, this is stated multiple times through out the comics history, as for his new abilities, according to sources i cannot remember(that means they are not reliable) he "forgot" them, they are still there he jsut cant use them. which doesnt make sense, how is MJ needed for him to die. Rau J16 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man's homemade webshooters are among the most well known gadets and gizmoes in comic book history. The biological webshooters were first seen in the first Spider-Man movie in 2002 and Marvel decided to incorporate that idea into the comics and give the comic version biological webbing as well. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The webs. In the comics it was the result of the webshooters he made. In the MOVIE it came from his hands. I have no idea how that works, but it is in the movie. One of its many flaws. You can put down that the webs he shoots are most commonly the result of the webshooters he made, however in the spiderman movie, the web strands came from him as one of his mutant abilities. Corrupt one (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the movie, he develops spinnerets that work the same way that a real spiders web spinner works. It was not a mutant ability, seeing as Peter Parker is not a mutant. Also, the biological web shooters in the movie are not a flaw, it was just to make the transformation more apparent, and it was more scientifically accurate than the ones in the comic (although to be exact, the webs would come from his mouth, under the tongue). Also, i dont think the biological web shooters need to be mentioned, seeing as they dont exist at all anymore. Rau J16 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. They SHOULD be mentioned, as they WERE part of his abilities. This section SHOULD list all of his abilities. He also was a mutant in that he had undergone a mutation which gave him his powers in the first place. How can you say he was NOT a mutant, or that the biological webshooters did not count as a power? Corrupt one (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, they were never part of his abilities, seeing as history has been rewritten. And if the section listed them all, it would be too long. And he is defined by marvel as a mutate, not a mutant, mutants are born that way, mutates are people like Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Peter Parker, Matt Murdock. they are humans with superhuman abilities. As for whether or not they should be mentioned at all, i propose a section be added to the article dedicated to his powers, something like "Pre-One More Day Powers". But i do not feel that they should be mentioned here. This article deals with Spider-Man, and currently, to say he has biological web-shooters is false. Rau J16 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, they were a mutate ability he had. I do not follow Spiderman well, but since they WERE his powers at a time, and were part of the widely seen movie, they should be mentioned. Also, I think it would be a good idea to explain where the webs come from. I do not know what you mean by "Pre-One More Day" so I can't talk about that.

As you mentioned, history had been rewritten, but they mechanicle webslingers are part of the spiderman mythos, and thus SHOULD be included. The biological ones in the movie should be mentioned to help explain confusion. We need to make this article understandable to most people with as little confusion as possible. Both mechanicle and biological webslingers are mentioned in the article at the moment. Corrupt one (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem mentioning abilities that he currently has and abilities that he once had. Marvel, I suppose, is attempting to restore a more "classic" version of Spider-Man with all of his classic powers and abilities at the levels that they've been at for the bulk of his existence. I feel that the article should emphasize the powers he currently has (superhuman strength, speed, stamina, agility, reflexes, spider-sense, and the artificial webshooters) over powers that he had prior to OMD (biological webbing and webshooters, retractable stingers, and notable increased to existing powers of superhuman strength, reflexes, and spider-sense). Those former powers could be listed as powers he once had but lost as a result of the events of One More Day. Any reference to the Spider-Man films, however, in the powers and abilities section really shouldn't be there. The films have their own article. This article is about the mainstream Marvel Universe (Earth-616) version of the comic book character first and foremost.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and the recent powers are no longer part of the 616 Spider-Man. I am for a mentioning of them in the Spider-Man's powers and equipment article. That way they get a mentioning, but not in the article about the current version of Peter Parker. Rau J16 02:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

spider-man resently gained the ability to shoot webs without the shooters. they are his powers now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are gone. Read OMD. Rau's Speak Page 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some tibits I found

I was reading a book, Superman on the couch by Danny fingeroth, and it mentioned Spiderman's influence. I was thinking it should be mentioned. Here are some bits from the book, you lot can dicide how to incorperate these bits of referance material. I am no expert on him. Still, you SHOULD be able to have something about him being an Antihero, his influence of the genre, and being an Archtype.

It took Spider-Man to break the mold of the teen hero, in ways both subtle and obvious. The mythos of the character has become so much a part of pop culture that it's easy to forget just how different he was. So many characters have built upon and outright swiped from Spider-Man, that his shifting paradigm of what defines a superhero - teenage or otherwise - is taken for granted, which is the mark of a sea-change character. It is hard to imagine a time before the Spider-Man "type" became ascendant. What made him so different?

A lead character who was a teenager? He was the first. A character with doubts? There was the FF, but they had each other to commiserate with and complain to. Spider-man had . . . Spider-man. A hero whoes first thought was to cash in on his powers, not to use them to help people? A hero who, even after he decided to become a hero, still had to earn money to support his family? A hero who the public thought was menace and/ or a jerk? A hero who didn't fit in with other heroes? If Spidy wasn't the first in all these, he certainly did it better than anyone else did. Spider-Man was truly the "regular guy superhero," yet he did it without trivializing the genre. he could, and did, lampoon it - and that, too, was part of his appeal - but not to the point of of destroying it. He wasn't rich or suave. he was selfless, but had a healthy dose of selfishness, too. Spider-Man can be seen as the apex of the superhero genre. Unlike the heroes before him, he is not perfect. Unlike many of the current heroes, he's not part of the movement to "deconstruct" the superhero.

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth 145- 146

How he feels is how we would feel. Not eternally chipper like Superman, not obsessed to the point of having no enjoyment of like like batman, but human in the truest sense of the word. After Spider-Man, there was really, in many ways, nowhere for the superhero to go.

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth 146-147

The young, flawed, and brooding antihero [Spider-Man] became the most widely imitated archtype in the superhero genre since the appearance of superman. Bradford W. Wright, Comic Book Nation: The transformation of Youth Culture in America 212

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth 151

I'm not sure how best to put these bits into the article, so I figured I would put them up here, and let you lot sort it out Corrupt one (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What needs to happen is to create a Reception section, but it is going to require more than one novel to make that work. Perhaps this can be achieved with the material already in the article? Rau J16 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

spiderman is so cool!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.176.178.4 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Publication history

I'm not sure why the apparent anti-Ditko/pro-Kirby bias has been recently introduced, but I can't really see any justication removing the only Steve Ditko image in the article, given that he's the artist co-creator (and this particular image does double duty by depicting Spider-man's archnemesis), nor for removing a first-person, eyewitness quote from Ditko, who was there, in favor of theorizing by a Kirby partisan and biographer who was not.

As well, for the umpteenth time, basic graphic design dictates that images aren't to look off the page. You can certainly break the rules for avant garde design and the like, but this is an encyclopedia, and the basic rules of graphic design are there to ensure clarity, aesthetics and eye-flow. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wehn you reverted, Ten, you also cut out everything I had added to the page... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could work on this together. That way we could address each other's concerns. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I was introducing 'anti-Ditko' bias. The current creation section reads entirely as "this is what Ditko thought". I was trying to explain Lee's motivations in designing the character, Kirby's objections to "Lee taking all the credit", the rebuttals therein, and the possible reason Ditko might have been given the task of making Spider-Man, rather than Kirby. As for the image, we must have a compelling reason to put it in per NFCC; what exactly does this do except add a Ditko cover? It's not really being discussed in the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines that Ditko was a direct eyewitness and participant, as were Lee and, to a lesser extent, Kirby and Simon — each of whom is quoted and contributes to the multifaceted picture. The inclusion of Evanier's theories is, as the justifiably well-regarded Evanier himself admits, just guesswork. In the absence of a multitude of eyewitness accounts, one may have to fall back on best-guess, reconstructive theories. But here, we've got four direct participants — one of whom, Kirby's valued partner and friend Joe Simon, directly contradicts Kirby. That's not Lee doing it, but a disinterested third party.

As to the encyclopedic value of including a Ditko image of Spider-Man, I'm surprised that could be considered controversial. He was the artist co-creator, which is very much discussed in the article. We certainly don't have to use that particular cover — I included it since it was not only a Ditko Spider-Man image with the character in typical action, but does double-duty by depicting Spider-Man's archnemesis ... which Ditko also co-created. We could use a different cover, though generally speaking it should offer some quantifiable informative element missing from the current one, rather than be simply a different aesthetic choice. What alternative cover would you suggest? Annual #1, perhaps, which includes several villains? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The cover is secondary to the content, in my mind. As far as I know I did not remove the content about Simon, I was simply adding Evanier's hypothesis; seeing as he was Kirby's biography, it seems justifiable to add. You also reverted citations to Lee's approval for developing the character. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that making huge unilateral changes, including to the entire article's footnoting in a way inconsistent with the remainder of WikiProject Comics, is not in the collaborative spirit for which we strive.

We're really supposed to discuss things and come to agreement or compromise in cases like this. May we please do that here, and collaborate, before having to go through more formal channels like an RfC? I'd really rather work together with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to prefer David's version, although I think there's some more work needed on Kirby's claims. They aren't treated as seriously as the presentation in this article may suggest, but I haven't got anything to hand at present. Historians tend to rate Kirby's part in the character as below Lee's and Ditko's. I've got some good quotes about Ditko I'll try and add at some point, too. Hiding T 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool — direct eyewitness quotes are the best. I'm hesitant to add third-party speculation when we've got so much material from the participants themselves, especially when it's coming from a Kirby fan/friend. No disrespect to the excellent Evanier, who in Daredevil (Marvel Comics) is quoted as a historian reporting what Kirby and Everett told him directly and for which they hadn't been quoted or reported about at length elsewhere. Which is different from the speculation here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is speculation, but it is being reported by a reliable source, and it's hardly likely that there's a conflict of interest here- Evanier is saying that Kirby's Spider-Man may have been too similar to the Fly, which neither Kirby or Lee have ever stated; it seems noteworthy to point out how both of their statements don't exactly mesh with the truth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FAMOUS LINES

What are some of spiderman's famous one liners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.8.100 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Defining Spider-man Stories

I realize this is somewhat subjective, but we can all agree that there are some stories that have helped define Spider-man and Peter Parker. I have submitted a list of these stories from the site under External Links [1] but it is deleted each time. The list on this site is thoughtfully written and gives valid reasons why these stories are so important to the Spider-man mythos. I would like to know why this isn't considered a valid link. For Spider-man beginning fans this is a superb starting place for getting to know the wallcrawler.

Thank you for the consideration.

Shell Harris

Things in need of revising

Over the years, the Peter Parker character has developed from shy high school student to troubled college student to a married teacher and a member of the superhero team the New Avengers.

This needs to be changed; as of One More Day, Spider-Man is no longer married nor a teacher. He is single and unemployed.

[blockquote]Abilities

Superhuman strength, stamina, speed, agility, reflexes and equilibrium Regenerative healing factor and durability Ability to cling to most surfaces Precognitive Spider Sense Synthetic webbing [/blockquote]

His synthetic webbing is either gone or forgotten, so it should either be removed or have a note explaining that he has apparently lost it because of One More Day.

58.175.169.47 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Man-Spider

Should we add a section about Man-Spider to the article? He was in the 90's TV show, but I don't read the comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.171.198 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relaunch

I was wondering if this article could have some clarity as to the late 1990s relaunch. I had assumed that it was related to Heroes Reborn, but looking at materials from the period, Spider-Man is not included among Heroes Reborn, and his absence in the recaps in Heroes Reborn: The Return #1 and in Man-Thing vol. 3 #2, don't include Spider-Man, imply that he was not in Franklin's pocket universe, so where was he, and why did his series restart? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

I have moved the statements lacking citations here until sources are found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• (Tagged since August 2008) He has since gone on to become one of the most popular, enduring and commercially successful superheroes worldwide, and is Marvel's most famous character.

'The Deadly Foes of Peter Parker'

In this part of 'Sensational Spider-Man', who was that kid standing next to Molten man when that lady assembled all of the worst villians of Spider-man? I think it was issue#30.--Flootures (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I think an article of this size is generally expected to have four paragraphs for the lead. I'll note that of the sections in this article, the ones that spring to mind as not being represented in the lead are Powers, Enemies, and Supporting characters, and probably Cultural impact as well, so maybe we could move some text around to get a few more sentences on those subjects? BOZ (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to work on this later today. BOZ (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All done. BOZ (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

The publication history section is great; in fact, to me it's a near-perfect example of how these sections should look for any long-lasting comics characters. However, the fictional bio is a bit lacking. I don't think it should be anywhere near as detailed as, say, Fictional history of Spider-Man, but I think a good summary of that article would go a long way towards building up the bio here. Right now, it does an excellent job of covering Spidey's origin story in the first three paragraphs. The fourth and final paragraph, however, tries to sum up almost 50 years of history in three sentences, and... I don't know about anyone else, but that's not doing it for me. :) I think most of the comics events Peter has been involved in can be glossed over or skipped, but the most important ones should get some coverage here. I can't see that it would hurt to have the FCB as long as the "creation", or even "commercial success" sections. BOZ (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on this section now. I'm trying to stick to the most important plot points; if I go overboard, feel free to trim back. :) BOZ (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I made sure to touch upon the major storyline(s) of each decade; that's the least I could do. :) Feels a lot more complete to me now. see diffs BOZ (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Other sections

Powers and equipment. This section seems a bit overly long to me - I mean, it's longer than the FCB, and that's a bit odd, dontcha think? I bet some of it could be moved into other sections, and we should leave only the most salient points about how his strength, spider-sense, wall-clinging, and other powers, and his web-shooters and other equipment work so that the reader has a clear view of what his capabilities are.

Enemies, Supporting characters. These seem fine at first look.

Alternate versions. If there's nothing worth saying under this header, can't we just move it to the "see also" section?

Cultural Impact. This is off to a good start, but it strikes me that it could be a lot more detailed with a character like Spidey. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for such info, but it's something we should keep an eye out for.

Spider-Man: The Musical. Um, que? This gets its own section? Can't we just move this to Spider-Man in other media? Speaking of that article, don't we owe readers a quick summary here on this article of his most notable media appearances? Or, uh, at least a link beyond the template way at the bottom of the page? Are ya with me here? :)

That's all for now. Discuss! BOZ (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the musical has been moved to the other media article as I suggested. ;) Now, the question is, do we want to summarize that article here? I think so, because Spider-Man's presence in other media really helped to popularize the character even more. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the link suffices, but a simple sentence along the lines of "Spider-Man has appeared in numerous and varied other media" would be fine. Tempest115 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're going for GA, SM's other media appearances whould definitely be summarized, and thouroughly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, one of the few things that may not require summarization is the musical. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. :) I agree with both of your statements, Peregrine. I'll see today if I have the time. I'd start out with a "Spider-Man has appeared in numerous and varied other media" line, and then give maybe a paragraph each to TV, movies, and other stuff, so something like 3-4 paragraphs in total. We can cut or add to that as needed, of course. "Thoroughly summarized" isn't an oxymoron, is it? ;) BOZ (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have done that. It is basically a paraphrasing of the Television, Film, Novels and books, and Newspaper strip sections of Spider-Man in other media, as well as taking some details from Spider-Man video games. It occurs to me that I probably should have tossed in a mention of Spider-Man action figures as well, and I may indeed do so momentarily. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Note that in my summary, I tried to include only items which had Spider-Man as the main focus, rather than merely things in which he appeared as just another character. The section is mostly unsourced, because the articles I was summarizing from were also unsourced, meaning that a lot of this info will, indeed, need sources. :) Feel free to cut out anything that is excess, or add anything significant which I missed. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've got so far. Tempest115 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I'll try to do more tomorrow, or sometime soon. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed the Powers section a little, and I'm fine with it now. We might trim it more during the GAR. BOZ (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I skimmed through the In Other Media section and I noticed that it only had one source. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, especially since I didn't read it, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

And one more thing:

"Along with Superman and Batman, Spider-Man is one of the most popular and commercially successful characters of all time. As Marvel's flagship character"

This seems just a bit a bit biased to me. Tempest115 (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My quick assessment is pretty much along the same lines as BOZ:

• Powers and abilities is too long considering it has its own article - it needs trimming down to a summary paragraph and sourced. The latter shouldn't be a problem as the Science of Superheroes has a whole section on Spider-Man that can be used (as I started to do on power ring (weapon)) - starts on page 65
• Similar problems with in other media - get it down to a paragraph or two on key appearances (film, TV and video games are going to be the most high profile)
• Publication history is not long enough considering the length of time the character has been around and all the titles they have appeared in. I did some looking around for sources for Green Goblin and some of this can be used here too (obviously):

• One more day [2]

• Sins Past [3]

• New Ways to Die:
  • SPIDER-GASM: Slott talks "New Ways To Die", Comic Book Resources, August 27, 2008
  • When Opposites Attack: Slott talks "New Ways To Die", Comic Book Resources, September 10, 2008
  • Enemies at the Gates: Wacker Talks "Amazing Spider-Man", Comic Book Resources, May 1, 2008
  • Dan Slott Talks Spidey in "New Ways to Die", Newsarama, August 14, 2008

Clone Saga - it was going to be Mephisto not Osborn [4]

Dan Slott on Spider-Man [5]

Spider-Man Blue [6]

There is a tonne of interviews and the like which can be used to give more background on character development and the thinking behind any changes which would really help bulk up the PH. (Emperor (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks - I'll see what I can do about getting some of that in there. :) BOZ (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding pointed out elsewhere that there is an index which has some entries on Spider-Man - don't know if I'll have the time to look at all of that, but there it is. :) I'm going to start looking at some of these other links that Emperor posted, and see what I can do with them. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop some of my thoughts in here when they don't relate to addressing a specific point.

That pretty much mirrors my thinking, while we do need more in the PH we can also help the average reader. More and better sections is key but also it is "dense" in publication details (he appeared in this and then that) and there is plenty of potential to add more background from creators which should make things flow a bit more easily and also help explain why certain changes/events took place.

Good work trimming down the powers and abilities (it might be worth giving the page numbers that is being referred to in the Science of Superheroes - you can adjust the page the link points to by adjusting the number in the query string, again as I did on power ring (weapon)). I also wonder if the friends could be made less... listy. Turning it into prose would make it a more concise and compact section.

The above links I dropped in, were just a few bits and bobs I found on another topic (it is worth looking in the other Spider-Man articles on titles/storylines as there may be information in there that can be used) and I'll have another look around for more material. What strikes me is that the cultural impact section is so thin - I'd imagine there would be enough potential information to make an article of its own.

Anyway good stuff. Keep up the good work. If it doesn't make GA this time it will be in an excellent position to do so next time round. (Emperor (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not that worried if we don't make it - like you say, significant improvement will make it that much easier for next time, and reviewer input will allow other editors to know what to fix.

I think prosifying the Supporting characters will actually be fairly easy, and I'll work on that next. BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

"The Amazing Spider Man #583" brings the president to the comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Souza (talk • contribs) 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this got a lot of press and there are plenty of sources for this. Hell there could even be an arguement for it having its own article. (Emperor (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Early direct sales estimates suggest it came in around 350,000 (and possibly more when the final numbers are in) making it one of the biggest selling Spider-Man comics [7] and it has got a tonne of press. You can assemble resources here: The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book)#Barack Obama. (Emperor (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spider-Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am beginning the review of this article for GA and will be listing my comments here. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• This article is overwhelmingly comprehensive, especially under "Publication history" > "Creation". Is all this detail necessary? Or is there a way of presenting it in a way that can be absorbed by the general reader?
• These wikilinks need disambiguation:

• Tween

Got it. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Spider-Man: The Other

Already done? BOZ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• This article is over wikilinked. Please read MOS:LINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking. In general, a word or term should be wikilinked only at the first mention, maybe twice if the next mention is far away in the article body. Also, common words that would be known by English speaking readers should not be wikikinked.

As mentioned, already handled by Hiding. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I also wonder if the headings are correct for the content.
• Publication history
  • Creation
  • Commercial success
  • Fictional character biography
• Power and equipment
• Enemies
• Supporting characters
• Cultural impact
• In other media

As far as I understand it, these headers are fairly standard and most of them are in common use on WikiProject Comics articles using its own exemplars. I'm not sure what else we would call them. :) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The usual "Critical reaction" or something similar is missing. I realize that it follows the structure of Batman (FA in 2004) and Superman (FAR 2007) but it needs focusing and perhaps updating.

True. I'm not sure what I can add to build that up. Do you mean like a finding an actual review, where someone will say "I thought this comic was... In my opinion this character seems to be..." like that sort of thing? To be honest, I'm not sure what to do to find this sort of content, and am kind of hoping for other people to help out and pitch in. :) If it's up to me alone to get this one ready for GA, I've probably bitten off more than I can chew. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also, there are whole sections that are not referenced, like the whole "Powers and equipment" section and almost all of "In other media".

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Condensed and added a source to the powers: I'm about to condense the Media, but a source will still be forthcoming (hopefully). BOZ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Your references are in disarray. You need to use a uniform reference format that includes publisher, pages numbers and access date (if a web reference) and ISBN if a book. See Reliable sources, Citing sources, Footnotes. You are already using templates for the Reference section. See Citations of generic sources. This is very important.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to be clear that this is a Good Article review and not a Featured Article review, because consistency of reference style is not typically a cause to fail a Good Article, certainly not in my experience and not based on the criteria, or the review guidelines. Hiding T 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've reformatted the refs; please leave a note on my talk page if there's still any trouble with them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is much much better. Probably more should be under "Cultural impact - all the innovations in sidekick stuff, etc. mentioned somewhere above. However, I am hesitant to say this article does not meet GA, although imperfect. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Publication history

I think there was something of a feeling that the Publication history could actually be more detailed and expanded.  :) I'll see if there's a way that I could simplify it further. Also, I think Hiding reduced the overlinking fairly well. I'll have a look into the rest as I can. BOZ (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with overall I would like to see more detail in the publication history, as well as critical impact especially. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right that more detail in the publication history is wanted. Perhaps if you organize it so the general reader doesn't get lost. Critical impact I agree needs more. (I had asked the editor to eliminate some of it, but you are saying the opposite?) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "in pop culture" mentions as much as I'm talking about the impact it had on comics; it created a new breed of heroes, legitimized teens as superheroes (where they had initially be sidekicks, et al. There's several books used as refs or called at least once which could be used for some of that info, but there's plenty out there, ex. http://books.google.com/books?id=_iYL9qTMu1EC&pg=PA212&dq=spider-man+cultural+impact --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The new breed of heroes etc. sounds very relevant for "Critical impact". What I asked the editor to condense was a lot of detail on how the original concept was developed among several people. It was rather confusing as there were so many different names and lines of argument involved. If you think this was a mistake on my part, please look at a recent version in the history, before the editor condensed. I would not want valuable information left out because of my suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the extra detail is needed, but it might need reorganization. The problem is the creation has taken on a sort of life of its own; there's Stan Lee's version of it, Stan Lee's remembered version of Stan Lee's version of it, disgruntled artist version of it, not quite as disgruntled artist version of it... it's a messy remembrance. Perhaps it should be segregated into the "official" story, with contrast from Ditko, Kirby? I'm not sure. It might just need more sort of "say it slowly" sentences so that people who don't know as much about the comic can follow along easier. You're right the balance is off though--there's more for the creation of the character than the 40+ years that came after in the rest of publication history. There's been two reboots of the franchise, and according to sources at the New York Comic-Con he's about to be spun off to a new label; there's lots to talk about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It was very confusing to me (Stan Lee's remembered version of Stan Lee's version of it, disgruntled artist version of it, not quite as disgruntled artist version of it...) but if this is part of the important "lore" or history, then if it can be put in a form that can be followed by readers like me, that would be fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll absolutely confess that my first few times reading it definitely confused me as well, and it took a few read-throughs to make sense of it. :) Maybe a more obvious flow would be Lee's version first (he got the impetus to make a character, took his idea to Goodman, Goodman agrees, talks with Kirby, then works with Ditko), then the involved Kirby's rebuttal, then the uninvolved Simon's rebuttal? Having Kirby refuting Lee right off in the first paragraph is probably what throws people off, so some reorganization might be sufficient. I can give that a try, and we'll see. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's not better, just let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

References

What should we do with the ones like "Web of Spider-Man #1 (April 1985)"? Should we use Template:Cite comic? Or maybe just "Web of Spider-Man #1 (April 1985) New York, NY: Marvel Comics? This looks nice:Conway, Gerry (w), Kane, Gil (p), Romita Sr., John (i). "The Death of Gwen Stacy" The Amazing Spider-Man, vol. 1, no. 121–122 (June–July 1973). New York, NY: Marvel Comics. Although I don't know if we know all the writers and whatnot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This site is very comprehensive for writers, artists, cover dates, and more. I can definitely help with mining for that data. BOZ (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So his first appearance would look like this: Lee, Stan (w), Ditko, Steve (p). Amazing Fantasy, vol. 1, no. 15 (August 1962). New York, NY: Marvel Comics.? I omitted the inker because Ditko did both, and the story because it apparently had no title per [8]. If this is the way we're going forward, I'll start fixing up the comic issue references with this format. BOZ (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It has an artist field that assigns inking and pencilling to the same person. That's a trivial criticism. In general, what you did looks great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• A wonderful article, if imperfect. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, awesome! :) Thanks for the review. It looks like we have quite a bit to fix before trying to get this one to FA! BOZ (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

This looks like a pretty good article to me right about now, and I'm looking at it to see what else we can do with it now to get it there. This article has a couple of old GA nominations, but it looks like those were before the current more-detailed system of reviewing an article, so there may not be much input we can glean from those fails. BOZ (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Success! Looks like there's a lot of work to do before getting it to FA though; see the review page for some hints to get started. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider Man in OTHER media

Shouldn't "other media" mean parodies and references as well? Like, Superhero Movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No it is for adaptations in other media. Homages and parodies are different beasts and tend to be magnets for original research and opinion, so I'd rather avoid them if possible as they can drag an article down and stop it progressing any further 9at least until it is removed). (Emperor (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Pushing things forward

Congratulations to everyone who helped get this to GA. We might as well keep the ball rolling with an eye to future quality assessments, so what needs doing to improve it?

My thinking is:

• A fuller publication history, it is good on the "print" side but might need a bit more of the human aspect from interviews and the like.
• Better sections in the PH - it is creation, then everything else and we can probably find a better way to carve it up into bite size chunks.
• Footnotes - I think having two forms of footnotes is... odd and confusing (and putting one lot into notes and one into references seems a bit arbitrary and I unsure if it is supported by WP:CITE).
• Cultural impact seems that place where we can make more additions and ultimately I'd imagine that section could become its own standalone
• More references - we need to keep making the referencing denser. I'll try and dig out some more material (especially for cultural impact) and if anyone knows of any good sources not currently used then drop a note in here and we'll see what we can do about getting access to it.

Anyone got any other thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

This came up on Talk: Fantastic Four#Cultural Impact (which might have other general things that could be picked up and used):

• Spider-Man: Superhero in the Liberal Tradition. (Emperor (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

On the issue of Spider-Man's creation from In Search of Steve Ditko, which is probably the most detailed Stan Lee has been recently:

• Sanderson, Peter Comics in Context #208: Creative Differences, Quick Stop Entertainment, January 7, 2008

Also I think the comments about Captain America's creation apply here: "But who actually did create Captain America? This is the book’s first major example of the Rashomon syndrome, in which each party involved has a different story of what happened, and may actually, honestly, remember the events differently. Moreover, in contrast to the Kurosawa film, there was no objective observer to present the truth". (Emperor (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Not sure if this helps with cultural impact [9]. (Emperor (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Needs some vandalism correction that looks to be quite old.

He said that the idea for chocolate man arose from a surge in teenage demand for comic books, and the desire to create a character with whom teens could eat.[3]:1 In his autobiography, Lee cites the non-superhuman pulp magazine crime fighter The Chocolate as an influence

is not correct. I am not so hot at spideman history, nor wiki edits, so please someone take this on. thanks.

--70.137.170.120 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got it! It wasn't more than a day or two old, though. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spider-X

I just made an article about this guy today, but haven't made a thought of it.

SilentmanX (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence

In Amazing Spider-Man # 588 (2009), Spider-Man states that he has an IQ "north of 250", making him approx. 100 points higher than Genius-Level intellect (depending on which IQ test is being considered, some stating Genius is at least 136 while others state that Genius is at least 180). Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article or perhaps the article on his powers (even though it isn't truly a super-power but rather Peter's own natural intelligence). I was going to insert it myself but I couldn't find the proper place and felt that it should be discussed. Any thoughts?--BigBang616 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a possibility that it's a Spidey one-liner or just an example of hyperbole. Like Reed Richards saying that the Thing could lift a battleship or shatter a mountain with one punch, even though neither act has been depicted as far as I'm aware. I recall once, though I'm not sure which issue it took place, in which Spider-Man stated that the Sentry could fight Galactus to a stalemate. A few problems make this statement questionable such as the fact that the Sentry used everything he had and only managed to fight the Hulk to a standstill and, since Galactus is one of these "virtually omnipotent" primal forces of existence. An even bigger problem is that Galactus and the Sentry have never been in the same issue of any title, let alone battled. I have no problem with Parker's intelligence and creative talents being mentioned. While not a power, his intelligence has always been part of who he is. As far as trying to assign an actual number to his IQ, I recommend against it.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I cleared up some vandalism here - someone (like in the case of Venezuela) replaced ll the text with "smelly". I suggest that the IP be blocked. I undid his error - like I did with Venezuela.Babylonian Armor (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Retiarius

Spider Man is not a new idea. In ancient Roman gladiator games a Retiarius was a fighter with almost no armour that relied on a retractible net and great speed, agility, cunning, and evasiveness. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronological inconsistency

Great page, just noticed a chronological inconsistency between this page and others.

First line under Creation "In 1962, with the success of the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Avengers and other stars, Marvel Comics editor and head writer Stan Lee was casting about for a new superhero idea."

According to their Wiki pages: X-Men was first published in The X-Men #1 (September 1963) [10] The Avengers was first published in The Avengers #1 (Sept. 1963) [11]

I'm no comics expert, but clearly either the statement that Spider-Man came on the heels of X-Men and Avengers is inaccurate, or the dates are.

210.56.78.65 (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Leo

Sindhi Spiderman?

Its probably vandalism, but not referenced anyway, so i removed sentence about a pakistani/sindhi spiderman comic in the Powers section. if it does exists, it may need an article, even if its gross copyvio against marvel, if marvel has sued. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Powers Vandalism

Someone with more knowledge of the current Spidey check out the Powers sidebar. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have "fire webbing", "invulnerability," and the strenght to lift 85 tons, among other problems. 97.93.214.209 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have since been removed, but as an avid Spider-Man fan, I happen to remember the wall-crawler having the first two of those powers, as power-ups, in the Nintendo 64 Spider-Man game. Still, probably just vandalism, but maybe some good faith somewhere : ) --Darktower 12345 17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some real problems with the powers in the infobox. Here is a list of powers with powers I do not remember him having in bold. Superhuman strength, speed, stamina, agility, reflexes, durability, invulnerability webs, fire webs, ice webs, web bullets, web blast, web laser, spiderman is bullet proof strength allows him to lift 100 tons and break through anything, sand web powers and water powers hAccelerated healing factor I don't even know what the hell some of those things mean (web laser). Correct me is I am wrong and he really does have all those powers. He may have a healing factor but what the hell is hAccelerated mean? 24.148.26.74 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) idersay anmay siay hetay ombbay ogday! orthnay akeslay siay hitsay

I agree, when did spidey fuse with sand-man, human torch, ice-man, and superman? Excuse my language, but I just don't think Spider-man had any of those powers you've pointed out. Revert my edit if i'm wrong, and make sure to back it up with some proof, please. EDIT: looks like someone took it down even though I just seen it, good job! Oh and i'm still waiting for that proof.--Kenn5 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

noses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shutupshelly (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Characters created by Jack Kirby

why was the category Characters created by Jack Kirby on spider-man page? i removed it. Gman124 ^talk 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is truly astonishing what is not said

This paragraph purports to say something about Peter Parker, the alter ego of Spider-Man:

"When Spider-Man first appeared in the early 1960s, teenagers in superhero comic books were usually relegated to the role of sidekick to the protagonist. The Spider-Man series broke ground by featuring Peter Parker, a teenage high school student to whose "self-obsessions with rejection, inadequacy, and loneliness" young readers could easily relate.[1]:210 Unlike previous teen heroes such as James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes and Robin, Spider-Man did not benefit from being the protege of any adult mentors like Captain America and Batman, and thus had to learn for himself that "with great power comes great responsibility" — a line included in a text box in the final panel of the first Spider-Man story, but later retroactively attributed to his guardian, the late Uncle Ben."

Yet it is truly astonishing that nowhere does it actually say, or even imply, what the relationship is between Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Have we reached a point where the main idea of a sentence or paragraph is now omitted? What does the contributor of this paragraph think the point of an encyclopedia is?Daqu (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please at all means if you don't like it or think it's encyclopedic feel free to change it and we'll see what it looks like from there. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Love interest

This article in the supporting characters says Gwen Stacy is the first love interest. But I do believe that Liz Allan and Betty Brant were love interests of his before her. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnoting

Its been raised a few times but really does need addressing: Why are there two different types of footnotes? They are certainly inconsistent with the way things are done on nearly every other Comics Project article and I have looked through WP:CITE and can't find anything that suggests it is a good idea. According to the guidelines for their usage WP:REFGROUP these are for explanatory notes, which isn't how they are being used here. Best I can tell they are being used for quotes (except where they aren't) which is not what they are for and this can be perfectly accommodated within the footnote system, as it is elsewhere. (Emperor (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

I've been wanting to merge those two different kinds of footnotes for a while now, here and in one or two other articles, but I didn't know how anyone else felt and I wasn't sure whether I should raise the point. Now that someone has, maybe it's time, indeed, that we address this. How does everyone else feel? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over it the best bet is to convert to WP:CITESHORT - it is a weird halfway house at the moment with books being sourced Saffel, Steve. Spider-Man the Icon: The Life and Times of a Pop Culture Phenomenon (Titan Books, 2007) ISBN 978-1845763244, p. 21" and the refered to late "Saffel, p. 51" when that first mention is itself to a specific page. The book should be extracted to a general "References" section and only referred to within "Notes"/"Footnotes" (bringin both sets of footnotes together in one section). The same goes for "Daniels" and some others. At the moment it is messy, inconsistent, confusing and not being used in line with the guidelines, so does need to be fixed. (Emperor (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Comments needed

There has been a month-long process by multiple editors to have the article "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and to merge it with Spider-Man under the model used at Superman and Batman.

A notice was placed at the WikiProject Comics Notice Board to solicit Project-wide input. Most of the responding editors are in favor of the new version. One editor has strenuously objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Further input from Project editors is requested. Please see the current Fictional history of Spider-Man and the proposed revision at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Then please give your comments at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus reached, new section being added

As there is only one dissenter at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man, and the remainder of the commenters all in favor of the change — with notifications about this discussion having been up on multiple noticeboards and talk pages for over a week, following a month-long public process of developing this new version — I am going with consensus and adding the revised fictional history of Spider-Man to Spider-Man, following the model used at the GA articles Superman and Batman. This will likely obviate the Fictional history of Spider-Man page. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The information I believe was split off from the main article, so it'd be easier to read. Just to make sure people understand it, this isn't the content from Fictional history of Spider-Man but instead something significantly different. The Fictional history of Spider-Man article actually shows the character's entire history, while what you have now being put in this article is a much shorter version, filled with quotes from people talking about the character and the comic development. Dream Focus 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And just to be really sure people understand it, the new version conforms to the policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), while the Fictional history of Spider-Man article does not.

It is also inaccurate to suggest that the new version does not "show the character's entire history". Not to be pedantic, but just to point our hyperbole, nothing shows the character's entire history but the comics themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for Spiderman Reboot

{{edit semi-protected}} I checked the IMDB (internet movie database) and Emma stone is set to play Mary Jane in the Spiderman reboot. I'd like this to go on the wikipedia page.

70.27.144.240 (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDB is not very reliable. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually she's set to play Gwen Stacy not Mary Jane Watson. See here. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Confidants NOT Lovers?

The statement about Peter and Mary Jane's first relationship as "confidants not lovers" is somewhat misleading. As the source is an "in-house" publication I think Wiki should investigate it further. In several interludes leading up to AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #149, a storyline involving the appearance of the Gwen Stacy clone (AKA "The First Clone Saga") the Mary-Jane character confesses that she and Peter were building something and she was concerned about another woman (the clone.) Also, in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #150 while near the point of death, Peter Parker's thoughts are of his aunt and MARY JANE, meaning she and not the dead Gwen Stacy was the one he cared about at that time! I think it is safe for us to conclude they were MORE than "confidants" at that point. There is some controversy and upheaval currently going on in the Marvel editorial offices concerning Mary Jane and Peter Parker, especially in the aftermath of the "One More Day" decision.MARK VENTURE (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a different wording since there is a concern about it per WP:Neutral. This is a case depending on who is writing it and varies from opinion. How would you prefer it be worded? And in what section is this said that you are implying. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in the DEATH OF GWEN STACY section. This is how it is worded on the MJ page: "MJ stays with Peter during his mourning; though he initially tells her to leave him alone, he becomes interested in her as he recovers. Their relationship has a few initial hurdles, such as MJ's hot temper and Peter's always dashing off to be Spider-Man. Following the events of the original clone saga, Peter realizes that Mary Jane is the girl he has always loved, and the two begin dating again. However, despite loving Peter, MJ does not wish to be tied, and when she allows the relationship to progress too far, she is left with a difficult decision when Peter proposes to her. After taking a short time to consider, she turns him down. Following a series of traumatic experiences involving Peter's absences and his costumed alter ego endangering his Aunt May, a spiritually-exhausted MJ leaves New York for several months...". Naturally, you may not want to include ALL of this but perhaps in some truncated form, the true story can be told properly.MARK VENTURE (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak about the Mary Jane Watson page, which just from this excerpt I can see is written in a non-encyclopedic WP:TONE. I will say that for this Spider-Man article, "confidants not lovers" comes from a highly reliable source — a book by the well-regarded Marvel historian Peter Sanderson. It is exactly this kind of third-party source that Wikipedia policy and guidelines dictate we use, rather than relying on our interpretations of the primary source. One interpretation — that "lovers" means they had intercourse — may be different from another interpretation — that they were in love. That difference of interpretation is where POV lies.

Related to this, I'm troubled by the phrase "I think it is safe for us to conclude...." We're not actually supposed to conclude at all. We're supposed to report the conclusions of authoritative reliable sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man's costumes

Given all the information in Spider-Man's costumes is merely descriptive and based on primary sources, there's no reason for much of the material in the article to exist, and thus should be either merged into this page or deleted. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NO merge: The Spider-Man article is already very long and there is no need to make it longer. The costume article also should not be deleted because it is a very well written (with sources) article. Spidey104 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the info in Spider-Man's costumes merely describes what the costumes look like (which can be presented more concisely with fair-use images or less-detailed prose) and provides unnecessary plot summary. Most of those costumes aren't even notable. Thus there would be little to actually merge, if anything at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Spidey104, the costume article has exactly zero external sources. So I don't know where you get "very well written (with sources)" from.—indopug (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I feel that using the primary source (ie. the comics) is perfect for Wikipedia and insisting on secondary sources is absolute crap. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that prefers secondary sources over primary sources. Spidey104 03:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles on fiction that are solely based on the primary sources, deal only with in-story elements of the work of fiction, and amount to plot dumps are not acceptable. Period.

If you feel you can fix the article to put it into a areal world context and dump the large amount of plot, do it. Now. While this discussion is ongoing.

But do not insist that it will be done after this closes as "no merge". The history on these articles is that, once kept, the problem articles are rarely "fixed". Most are maintained as is or expanded with more plot dumps.

- J Greb (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I'd go with "merge" but not directly here. First collapse it back into Spider-Man's powers and equipment. Clean that up, then merge back into Spider-Man#Powers and equipment. All the while keeping an eye on what is appropriate to a general purpose encyclopedia, what is appropriate to a Marvel or Spidey-centric reference work, and what belongs on a fan page.
  As far as the merits of Spider-Man's powers and equipment and Spider-Man's costumes... yes, they are well written, the prose is nice and clean. That should make pruning easier. But as far as sourced... Spider-Man's costumes provides "First appearance" issues and that's it. There is zero cites to support the text, primary or secondary. Worse, it provides next to nothing in regards to real world context. We get a "checklist", but nothing about the reasons Marvel's editors or writers made long term changes to the characters costume or how/why particular versions were adapted for spin-off media or "retelling" the Spider-Man story (essentially the Ultimate line). Spider-Man's powers and equipment isn't much better with of the 71 cites:
  • 3 come from 3rd party sources not based on a Marvel press release or interview;
  • 2 from Marvel's EIC's self-promotional piece/columns;
  • 2 repeating Marvel press releases;
  • 1 that is a "fan response" to one of those press releases;
  • 1 that is a press release on the "news" section of Marvel's official website;
  • 1 that is from the official Marvel wiki - which amounts to an online version of the OHOTMU; and
  • 61 comic books - primary sources.

I'm not sure how much of what exists in the 2 broaches WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but a lot of the material is a regurgitation of plot for the sake of having the plot there. Yes, some of the material is important in covering what Spider-Man is. And some of it is important with long term development of the character. But not all of it. And definitely not presented in a way that ignores or bucks the guidelines on writing about fiction.

One last thing. If it does come down to deleting the equipment and costume pages - and I rather see a merge with redirects - I'd rather not see the sad dance we've had with the fictional history article repeated.

- J Greb (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be merged for it is not sourced at all. But not here. Instead it should be merged in Spider-Man's powers and equipment#Costumes which discusses the same thing making the article redundant. That is the proper place for it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Against merge The information is fine where its at. A perfectly reasonable side article/content fork. Against any mindless deletion of content also. Dream Focus 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't hard figuring that that would be your vote. You are committed to saving articles and I respect that. But I would avoid using the term "mindless" over something like this. I know you mainly meant the act of deleting but one can misinterpret that you mean the ones who deleted or felt it should be deleted and that can be a personal attack against the user. Out of topic of that, I am very protective of this article to stay as a good article, and if you merge the unsourced costume article, you might as well say bye to this article to be a good article. I really feel Spider-Man's powers and equipment#Costumes already explains what the article is talking about better thus being very redundant. But if there is any information that would be deleted, by all means include it on the section. I prefer it sourced even more but still I support still having the content like User:Dream Focus. What I don't agree on is that everything has got to be a article on it's own. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is mindless to destroy something without legitimate reason. That is usually what happens when people decide to do "trimming". I am against that, and will state that ahead of time to hopefully prevent it from happening. Dream Focus 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am against the merge, but it would make more sense to merge it where Jhenderson777 suggested (Spider-Man's powers and equipment#Costumes) if it does get merged. I also agree with Spidey104 about the sources; I am a frequent reader and only occasional editor on Wikipedia and it is articles like this that make Wikipedia great and are why I come here at all. Readers of Wikipedia are here for the comic book context of the information, NOT the real-world significance of it. Who gives a flying rat's ass fuck about whether the real world made a mention about the Spider-Armor? I want to know what happened with it in the comics. Kurt Parker (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Who gives a flying rat's ass fuck about whether the real world made a mention about the Spider-Armor? I want to know what happened with it in the comics". That misses the entire point of Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Then you would be best served picking up the source material and giving it a read, eh? Wikipedia isn't a "spoiler/review/synopsis" website. Any plot information that is here is incidental to the fact that it supports the encyclopedic content of the article as it facilitates a proportionate real-world understanding of the subject/topic.Luminum (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still against the merge to the main Spider-Man article, but I will support a merge to Spider-Man's powers and equipment#Costumes as Jhenderson777 suggested. Spidey104 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Spider-Man's powers and equipment would be mostly about the costume if the information was merged there. A costume isn't really a power or an equipment, with the possible of the spider armor and the venom symbiote. I think the information over there now, should be moved to the costume article. Many mentions exist of how the media covered Spider-Man when he changed his costume to the black form, that surprising the people at Marvel. But I agree with Kurt Parker about coming here for information about the comic book, not the real world significance. Dream Focus 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A costume can count as equipment. Anyways I see your concern with people coming here for the comic related information, my only beef with that is it's against guidelines and is part of what Wikipedia is not. If you feel differently about that. Try to improve the guidelines to your liking is my recommendation. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• What Jhenderson said. Additionally, there's a difference between indicating what reliable secondary sources say about the costume (which is what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia) and merely describing what the costume looks like and what Spider-Man does in said costume in the stories it appears in. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Spider-Man's powers and equipment. It already has full descriptions of his costumes. The costume article is thus redundant. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aliases

In the box, under "Notable aliases", there are some I'm not sure about:

• Captain Universe – I know Spider-Man has had the Captain Universe power, but I don't think he ever used Captain Universe as an alias
• Super Spider – I'm somewhat sceptical that this is an alias
• The Challenger – never heard of that in relation to Spider-Man

These may be real and just have escaped my notice, but in that case I wonder why they count as "notable aliases" rather than "unbelievably obscure aliases". killy mcgee (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree; these do sound dubious. Scarlet Spider was definitely an alias, for instance. These others? I'd like to see some citations.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote for removing "Super Spider" and "The Challenger" and changing "Ben Reilly" to "Ben Reilly/Scarlet Spider." Spidey104 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove all three "aliases" I mentioned above unless/until someone has some argument or evidence that they qualify as notable aliases. killy mcgee (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both editors above, with the caveat that I don't know what Project policy is regarding Captain Universe, and whether that's really considered an alias in the usual sense or just an entity that temporarily took it over. I think once we start down that road, we'd have aliases for every demon that inhabited Doctor Strange, or every time Doctor Doom switched bodies with Mr. Fantastic or Daredevil (as has happened in both cases). --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are no sources for it and it's not a notable alias. Then I am ok with it being removed. I don't even remember these aliases being used before. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What about "Iron Spider"? Isn't that the name given to another set of characters who wore a version of Spidey's red-and-gold costume? I don't think it is an alias. 212.44.19.206 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

They had a character called the Iron Spider who was a guy with a mechanical spider suit. I saw him appearing with American Eagle during the superhero Civil War. Not sure if the name was used by others also though. But this guy wasn't Spider-Man. Dream Focus 23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Paragon

Due to the fact that he has shown an indomitable will, a purity of heart completely free of evil or temptation, and a remarkable kindness, can Spider-Man be considered as the most benevolent and upstanding hero of the MU? Leader Vladimir (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Doksandman, 31 March 2011

The third paragraph of this article contains the following sentence:

"He is even been a member of an unofficial splinter group of the Avengers, one of Marvel's flagship superhero teams."

Please correct the poor grammar by replacing "is" with "has".

Doksandman (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome to Wikipedia. If there is anything you need help on just let me know and I will be sure to help.:) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix wrong info

The article says that Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark will open on May 15, 2011, but this is not correct. It will open on June 14, 2011, as shown in the article previously linked.--65.8.21.4 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

70's movie

There was a Spider Man movie in the 70's that is not mentioned at all in this article.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.34.164.18 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Big Time and Spider-Island

Due to the high importance that the comic books have been giving to these storylines, maybe we should write articles about them. What do you say? Leader Vladimir (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of the "Publication history" section we could add a little bit about "Big Time." We'll have to wait until "Spider-Island" actually happens to add anything. But you could definitely start an article about them, similar to Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Spidey104 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Noir Edit

I would like to add Noir Spider-man into the "Other Versions" since he has become more and more popular.

Isn't Peter Parker dead now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.9.15 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking of that...
• Boyette, Chris. "Behind Spider-Man's mask -- a new, multiple-racial face." CNN. August 3, 2011.
• I thought this would be interesting.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence fragment

There is a sentence fragment in the sixth paragraph of the "Character history" section. I don't know if it applies to the sentence before or after, so I'm not sure how to fix it: "In a controversial storyline, Goletz, Andrew, and Glenn Greenberg." — Hunter Kahn 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Secret Defenders

Spider-Man was also a member of the Secret Defenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.213.24 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics vampires??

Should we include this category or not? It has been in the article for a long time (I know that by itself is not an argument to keep it) and there was a previous discussion for inclusion. Referencing Vampire (Marvel Comics) as a reason against inclusion (or for inclusion in a discussion on a different page) is probably not good support since it is a poorly written article that is barely edited, but even so that article has him listed and would actually support the inclusion of that category on his page. He has been turned into a vampire on at least two occasions within the comics, so I feel that it qualifies for him to be included in the category. Is he currently a vampire? Obviously not, but there are multiple categories (photographers, reporters, and schoolteachers) that we would have to remove because he does not currently fill that position. Spidey 104 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Any idea where we could find the previous discussion? I can't see anything obvious in the talk archives for this page (which do not appear to include the word 'vampire'). --McGeddon (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it happened on a personal talk page because there was another issue under discussion concurrently. I tried to find it and failed. But whether we can find that discussion or not doesn't prevent us from discussing it properly now. The article you listed as not supporting the inclusion of the category actually does support the inclusion of the category. Spidey 104 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, many articles are over categorized, especially fictional characters. I feel that only items that are important to the character should be included. When it comes to comic book characters, I mean things that have an important plot effect on an important version of them for an extended period of time. The fact that it is not mentioned anywhere in the actual article, proves that it is not important. 19:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any rules or guidelines to support JDDJS's feelings? Or is this down to another personal opinion debate? Spidey 104 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents' worth: If the purpose of the categories is to help researchers and others who use an encyclopedia to find pertinent examples of a particular topic, then I'm not sure how helpful it is to include Spider-Man under "vampires." When I'm looking for a list of vampires, it would include Dracula, Varney, Angel, Spike, etc. With Spider-Man it was a temporary condition, and it seems kind of like including Jimmy Olsen under "fictional turtles" since he was temporarily changed into a turtle-boy. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But is that how categories are supposed to be used? Or another way of asking that is: are categories supposed to be "inclusive" of everything or "exclusive" to the main/best examples? With categories being placed at the bottom of the article where they mostly get ignored I have always found them to be inclusive since it doesn't really affect the article (good or bad) when an extra category is added. I would also argue for the lists to be inclusive to help researchers. Any researcher worth their salt would be able to find the best examples from an inclusive list, but it is hard to find examples where a subject crosses over into a field typically unrelated with an exclusive list. If I was researching "fictional turtles" I would want Jimmy Olsen on the list because that is such an unanticipated example, however temporary it was. Spidey 104 17:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking around the editing guidelines, WP:DEFINING suggests exclusivity. It says to concentrate on defining characteristics, and that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". --McGeddon (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the sort of guideline I was asking for. Thank you, McGeddon, for finding that. I won't re-add the category. Spidey 104 18:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

The article states that he had no adult mentor, yet later reveals that Uncle Ben taught him the aphorism "with great power comes great responsibility" (even if it was retroactively). The comparison with Robin and Bucky is also weak because they didn't start as central characters, while Spider-Man did. I therefore vouch that the entire sentence be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.121.22 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I did fix that problem. Spidey104 16:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ends of the Earth

Shouldn't we make an article about the Ends of the Earth storyline? I mean, Marvel is presenting it as the next major Spider-Man event. What do you say? Leader Vladimir (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have started the Ends of the Earth (Marvel Comics) article for that storyline. I will continue to update and edit that article, but please feel free to help in improving the article as well. Spidey104 16:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter's Parents

Can't there be some mention of Peter's parents? I'm not suggesting that we treat Mark Millar's Trouble as canonical, but mentioning at least the names of his parents would be reasonable, and a summarized mention, sourced to the canon of how they died, would seem to be at least somewhat relevant to how he came to be raised by Ben and May. Nightscream (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it but I would want it cited somehow. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard and Mary Parker would probably be a useful article for finding information to add. Kurt Parker (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Spider-Man Jewish?

Well, I don't know the answer to my question - but officianados may find this link (http://www.timesofisrael.com/is-spider-man-jewish/) interesting and come up with the answer. Barmispain (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But unless Marvel comics or Stan Lee himself says so, then we can't add it to the article. Dream Focus 13:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Making Yiddish comments does not make one Jewish, and there are comics that have specifically mentioned him as protestant. So the simple answer is no. Kitty Pryde is the only Marvel Comics character that I can think of who is Jewish. Spidey104 02:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Magneto is Jewish, as are numerous others. Don't really think that matters though. I don't recall any comics ever mentioning Spider-Man is any religion. Protestant isn't a religion its a grouping. Methodist, Baptist, etc. etc. Dream Focus 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If this would count as a widely talked about controversy or common belief (kind of like a topic like this) I would support the inclusion of it as a reception of the character definitely with a source like that but I am not sure it's a common belief. I also know that Aunt May is normally always portrayed as a religious character...most likely Catholic. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about Magneto, but here's a quick way to find more: Category:Jewish superheroes.

I realize protestant is not a specific religion, but they never explicitly state his religion. He is shown to be Christian, but nothing with priests would imply not Catholic. Furthermore, I read an interview (I believe it was with Joe Quesada when he took over as EIC) where the person being interviewed compared Daredevil's Catholicism to Spider-Man's christianity-that-was-not-catholic.

But what really matters is that I agree with Jhenderson777 and I am fine to include it if there were more articles like that. Only one article discussing his possible religion would probably be over doing it since there does not seem to be much debate, or people actually caring about it, to bother with it. Spidey104 01:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

--112.206.172.107 (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 November 2012

Please, I would like to edit the following text, because is a little confusing about the first spider-man film, saying that the first spider-man film was release on may 4, 2007 (I know it was refering to the trilogy, but confuses the reader to thing that this was the first ever made). Actually, I think that the first spider-man film was released in 1997 (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Spider-Man_(1977_film), or even before that:

Spider-Man was also featured in a trilogy of live-action films directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire as the title superhero. The first Spider-Man film was released on May 3, 2002; its sequel, Spider-Man 2, was released on June 30, 2004 and the next sequel, Spider-Man 3, was released on May 4, 2007. A fourth sequel was originally scheduled to be released in 2011, however Sony later decided to reboot the franchise with a new director and cast. The reboot, titled The Amazing Spider-Man, was released on July 3, 2012; directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield as the new Spider-Man.[90][91][92][93][94]

So, I propose make this change:

Spider-Man was also featured in a trilogy of live-action films directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire as the title superhero. The first Spider-Man film OF THE TRILOGY was released on May 3, 2002; its sequel, Spider-Man 2, was released on June 30, 2004 and the next sequel, Spider-Man 3, was released on May 4, 2007. A third sequel was originally scheduled to be released in 2011, however Sony later decided to reboot the franchise with a new director and cast. The reboot, titled The Amazing Spider-Man, was released on July 3, 2012; directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield as the new Spider-Man.[90][91][92][93][94]

Mhenriquef (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit has been added. Spidey104 01:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Already done. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in the article

Peter`s first girlfriend wasn`t Gwen Stacey, but Betty Brant. Should be corrected! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIMitsu3 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yep your right, Betty Brant was J.Jonah Jamesons's secretary, first appearing in "Amazing Spider-Man" issue 4, Peter and Betty dated a few times before her brother Bennett Brant was implicated in a deal with Dr Octopus, who then kidnapped her, Peter ran to her aid but, during the battle between Spidey and Doc Ock, Bennett was accidentally killed and Betty held Spider man responsible, after that her relationship with Peter became strained and she eventually dropped him for Ned Leeds. She is correctly identified as his first girlfriend in the Supporting Characters section but, for some reason, she is not even mentioned in the Fictional Character Biography section, a mistake that should be rectified.81.111.126.82 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong references

Ref 85 in the text (about the smart superheroes) is actually ref 90 in the references. Ref 84 is actually 85, etc.

Seems the references are not up to date :) 62.62.174.224 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The references look fine. Spidey104 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing with the wrists all over again

Spider-Man does not shoot web from his wrists, at least is not one of his superpowers, that was a thing from the movie that got everyone confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDJoker (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily he did. Thankfully they changed it back to the webshooters. Spidey104 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Death of Peter Parker

Marvel has revealed that Peter Parker will die in the final issue of Amazing Spider-Man [12]. I realise that this is an upcoming event but it has received significant coverage in the media already. I think the article should be updated to reflect this important information. I don't feel qualified to write about this myself, so who would like to volunteer? --Smcg8374 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Mathiastck (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the book already came out so it already happened. I've already read the book and in fact he does die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.71.107 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Same as above. The death of Peter Parker, as well as the discontinuation on issue 700 of the flagship Spiderman title is lede/intro worthy. I'm surprised this hasn't been added already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.63 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the discontinuation of the flagship Spider-Man title should be covered in the lead of the article about that title. Oh wait, it is already covered in the The Amazing Spider-Man article!

However, you are correct about the need to include his death in the lead. That oversight has now been corrected. Spidey104 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

Somewhere in the Archives of this talk page (and at the Wolverine and Norman Osborn articles) are prolonged discussions WikiProject had a couple of years ago or more in which the consensus was, reasonably enough, that the Project follow the fiction-writing guidelines at Writing About Fiction. This includes real-world perspective so as to avoid fictography. One editor unilaterally made a significant change contravening this consensus, and when reverted to status quo, restored his contentious edit. I've asked him to bring his issue to this talk page for discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to this already with the One More Day Topic. As I stated, there are fifty years of history for Spider-Man and only a few paragraphs. You are spending three paragraphs revolving around one storyline and more than one paragraph on the backstory. I'm not objecting to this information being in this article, but I strong object to that much discussion being placed on what I can only assume is a subject you have strong feelings about, but halts the flow of the fictional character biography. I also question the fact stated here, which I believe are at least partially inaccurate or at the very least confusing context. I think this particular topic could be moved to another section, but it doesn't belong here. User:beanlynch —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See my reply in section above. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

One More Day

There should not be two to three paragraphs about the One More Day Storyline backstory in Fictional Character Biography. This stops the flow and this would be better stated in another section. What is already there stating it was "controversial" says it all. If this subject deserves its own topic, there could be a link to that. Also, the facts provided were confusing and somewhat misleading. The conflict between J Michael Straczynski and Marvel was about the science fiction elements of the story, not about the survival of the marriage. That is implied to be the issue to be dispute by what was written and it has been documented that that was not the issue of debate. Lets please discuss this further before this is added back into the text the way it was previously written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanlynch (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 November 2013

One More Day drastically altered the story, so it deserves slightly more coverage. I don't think information about that section should be expanded beyond what it already is, but I also don't think it should be significantly shortened either. Breaking it into a separate section would make the flow even worse since that would break the chronological flow of the section. Spidey104 18:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It drastically altered the story as compared to what? When Steve Ditko left the book. We could have a couple of paragraphs about the disagreements between the creators. This is all behind the scenes information. It does not belong here!!! It is obviously a hot button issue and it could use some coverage, there are only a few paragraphs here covering a fifty year history, and the back story behind this one storyline completely interrupts the flow of the fictional history of the character. It would be better in a section about criticism or behind the scenes. I'm not going to delete it again, but it should not be here!!!

It's also misleading about the way it was written. It reads like JMS had a problem with undoing the marriage. The issues between him and Marvel were more over the way the story was done. It's confusing and misleading (purposeful or not) and really has very little to do with the fictional character history. --beanlynch (talk)

Yes, it should be here. The reason is that even the "Fictional character biography" section needs to be written from a real-world perspective. A real-world perspective means that when available from reliable sources we give the real-life creative reasons for the decisions affecting the fictional story. This is well-established — as I've noted — at the Wikipedia guidelines for Writing About Fiction, as well as by archived discussions here and elsewhere, if you would please look at them.

Moreover, we do not simply remove chunks of a Good Article willy-nilly. That text and that section were there when this article passed GA. That means at least one admin and possibly more, as well as multiple editors, reached consensus on this. Your opinion notwithstanding, it was the opinion of numerous contributors that the text there was pertinent, well-cited and encyclopedic.

May I ask that when adding comments to a talk page, you indent your posts and also sign them, using a dash and four tildes. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to alter this section myself again, however I'm hopeful that discussion will lead to this being revised for the sake of making this a more useful entry.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with them, to the point that this is a fictional character and if you were to present fictional information as if it were real history that would be problematic. And I think it's very effective to provide real world references within an article. I'm not debating that point at all.

There are two issues I have with this being included the way it is. The first is the one that you aren't addressing. There are ten paragraphs of the fictional character biography here. Two and a half paragraphs are focusing on this topic and two of those paragraphs are focused on the backstory without adding anything to the fictional biography. I understand what you say that you think this is more important than other changes in history, but as I stated above, there were disputes when the original creators of Spider-Man parted ways and I would argue that that is just as important if not more (considering it was a dispute between the actual creators of the character). You could also say the same thing about the backstory involving the Clone Saga which was just as controversial at the time. We could include all of that information, but that wouldn't make for a good fictional character biography. In order for a fictional character biography to be useful it has to flow. This breaks up the flow.

The other issue I have with it is that I think it confuses some of the facts of this story. The issue that J Michael Straczynski had with the editorial choices made by Marvel were about the logic of the scientific fiction elements of the retcon, not whether or not Spider-Man's marriage should be undone. What I see is that a fragment of one piece is being lumped in with a fragment to another which confuses the context of the issue. I actually think this issue is worth sorting out and documenting. But I think if you go into it in the fictional character biography it weighs the function of that section down. Perhaps a link could be provided to another section as reference point.

I appreciate that there have been ongoing debates about these issues. I don't mean to step on your toes and I'll engage in a dialogue before I change anything else and won't change anything myself that is in dispute. But I do think that a ten paragraph section on a 50 year character history should not have more than two paragraphs on one piece of it.--beanlynch (talk)

Please learn to indent. It makes it easier on all of us. Just put one or more colons immediately before the first letter of each paragraph.

I agree with you that background on Ditko's departure would be nice to see added. I think the issue may be that there has never been a definitive reason given, only theories without confirmation.

Background on the Clone Saga is given in the FCB. It's not set off as a blockquote, which is perhaps why you missed it.

RE: "In order for a fictional character biography to be useful it has to flow. This breaks up the flow." First, no: In order for a fictional character biography to read well, it has to flow. But the section is still useful if all the facts are pertinent and accurate, even if the writing style could be improved. Style and content are two different things. And secondly, it is only your opinion that current text breaks up the flow. My opinion and that of at least one other editor in this discussion is different. Please do not make statements like "It breaks up the flow" as if this were objective fact and not subjective opinion.

Finally, a reboot of the entire continuity, erasing a character's marriage, the death of his best friend, public knowledge of his real identity and much, much else that had been fundamental to 40-some years of storytelling at that point is major, and the reasoning behind any such extraordinary change would seem unquestionably pertinent. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Beanlynch, I think your problem is that the more recent One More Day seems to have more coverage than Ditko's departure or the Clone Saga. Those are older issues so it is harder to find references for those. If you are able to find reliable references that would be acceptable to Wikipedia standards to expand those sections it would improve the article, but please check here or on Tenebrae's talk page before adding them to the article to verify they are appropriate.

I also concur with Tenebrae that you need to start using colons to indent your comments; it is standard Wikipedia style and helps other editors visually see where one editor's comments end and another editor's comments begin. Also, please sign and date your posts to talk pages by using ~~~~ at the end of your posts. Thank you! Spidey104 14:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Spider-Man is a fictional spider

Spider-Man is a fictional spider for the same reason Cell from dragon ball is apparently a fictional insect. This is particularly evident when he Man Spider. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He is not a "fictional spider" because he isn't a spider. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

He is a man who has temporarily transformed into an appearance that greatly resembled a spider. Spidey104 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Relationship with Mary Jane

In the fourth paragraph of the fictional character biography it states "Working through his grief, Parker eventually develops tentative feelings toward Watson, and the two "become confidants rather than lovers"." This is not entirely accurate. Peter Parker and Mary Jane became a couple in Amazing Spider-Man #143 (April 1975) when they kissed as Peter was about to get on a jet to go to Paris. That relationship lasted until Peter's first proposal to Mary Jane in Amazing Spider-Man #182 (July 1978) and her turning him down and leaving town in Amazing Spider-Man #183 (August 1978). Mary Jane was then absent from the series for years and doesn't return until five years later in the last page of Amazing Spider-Man #242 (July 1983). That was the beginning of the friendship where they became "confidants rather than lovers", which was progressed by the groundbreaking revelation/retcon in Amazing Spider-Man #259 (December 1984) that Mary Jane had know Spider-Man's identity since the night that he went after the burglar who killed Uncle Ben in Amazing Fantasy #15 (as told in Spider-Man Parallel Lives Graphic Novel). I propose this section be revised.--beanlynch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"become confidants rather than lovers" is a verbatim quote from respected comic historian Peter Sanderson's book. In fact, I believe Peter was in-house Marvel historian for several years. You're welcome to your opinion, but Wikipedia doesn't allow the type of personal analysis and original-research synthesis as you offer in your post here. We cite published reliable sources — preferably, acknowledged, authoritative experts in a given field.

That said, I'll pull the book down off my shelf and check that its information was transcribed correctly to the article. It may be something as simple as that. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've checked. Nothing Sanderson writes is contradicted by the chronology you give — he's simply writing in broader, more general terms. In the interest of compromise, however, I've added an academic journal's citation for the #182-183 proposal and rebuff, using it to cite a sentence that reflects what seems your essential point above. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• They were married for awhile there, before someone decided to just undo that, making it more interesting for them to just be friends. Surely in the years they were married in the comic book, they were lovers. And I'm not sure, but weren't they living together before then at times? Dream Focus 17:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Species

Could a better term be used than Human Mutate, which is a fan term but which might be confusing to someone who does not regularly read comics. What about something like "Superpowered Human" or something of that sort. Mutate is an awfully strange word for the average person. Remember, these are fictional terms and this is a general audience article, not the Marvel Universe Handbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanlynch (talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Human Mutate" is a bad term, but I don't know if "Superpowered Human" is the correct term either. Since "Human Mutate" is used in a lot of comic book articles on Wikipedia the best place for this to be debated is actually on the Comics WikiProject talk page. Spidey104 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you call the Fantastic Four, or others that got their powers through an accident? Dream Focus 17:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Should spiderman be listed under Categories:Highschools in fiction?

How important is highschool to the story of spiderman? CensoredScribe (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the show(insert article name here) has having to do with (insert category here)? Would (category name) be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article? (Wikipedia:DEFINING#Non-defining_characteristics) No? Then no. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

He had a lot of issues for various comic book series and cartoon episodes that took place in his high school, but this isn't an article about a high school, nor a show that takes places over 90% of the time in one. A category about a fictional higher school or simply a fictional teenager would make sense, since for decades he was still a teenager stuck in high school. Dream Focus 12:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What high school are we talking about? Midtown High? If anything that place should redirect or be a article somewhere else than here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Spiderman being an inventor vital to his personality.

I believe web shooters are fairly central to the original Spiderman's character. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define Spider-Man as being an inventor.Wikipedia:Categories#Articles - SummerPhD (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

He invents other things, sometimes doing that in the comic book and cartoon series in order to defeat a major enemy. Does that rather often. He also worked as an inventor for a company recently for years, then with Doc Ock taking over his body and being Superior Spider-Man has been working as an inventor for his own company. So yeah, that is rather notable aspect of the Spider-man character, as Peter Parker and as Doc Ock. Dream Focus 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Next up: Category:Fictional characters who wear red and blue. Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define Spider-Man as being an inventor? "Spider-Man is a superhero inventor who wears red and blue." - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a notable characteristics, while color of his outfit is not. And there isn't an automatic Google search for comic book reliable sources so its hard to check how times someone talked about him as an inventor or mentioned his inventions. Since they review every issue these days, and many have him inventing something new to fight an enemy, I'm sure it gets coverage. Dream Focus 18:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources (which also show him in red and blue, BTW) are not the issue. Do "reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define" Spider-Man as an inventor, Batman as a psychologist, Wonder Woman as a polygraph examiner, Darth Vader as an abolitionist, etc.? Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_characteristics - SummerPhD (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to find sources commenting on that. Nor do you need them to say Batman is an inventor, since he uses gadgets he makes all the time. Its a key feature in the comic book series, everyone who reads it knows that, so it falls under common knowledge, not original research. Dream Focus 12:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The guideline in question does not seem to be specifically concerned with WP:OR, though it would cut that off as well. The question here is more a matter of avoiding extensive lists of categories of no utility. Given the extensive history of the characters we are discussing, your argument would have us adding "Fictional crime victims", "Fictional baseball players", "Fictional arachnologists", "Fictional tourists", "Fictional chefs", etc. based on non-defining characteristics. Pick people at random and ask them to define Spider-Man. Would any of them say "inventor" in the first several sentences? I don't think so. This seems to be what the guidelines are suggesting: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having." Wikipedia:Category#Articles and "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided....a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ..."."..."if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_characteristics. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your examples are nonsense. Those categories probably exist though, but wouldn't be appropriate here. And most people who read Spider-Man comic books would say "inventor". Reliable sources talking about his first encounter with Vulture and certain other enemies, would mention he invented something to defeat them. They'd mention how he invented his webshooters and web fluid as well at the start. He has invented stealth armor to fight one bad guy, gadgets to defeat Sandman by locating his controlling particle, magnetic webfluid to fight one enemy, etc. etc. Marvel's official website has on its page for him at https://marvel.com/universe/Spider-Man mention "his skills as a brilliant scientist and inventor". There is an alternate reality version of him seen in comics and one of the cartoons which was a wealthy successful inventor. Here is an article in a major comic book review site which mentions various inventions of his [13] including the different types of armor and other gadgets. Another comic book site [14] mentions various things he invented, just search for the word "invent" on that page to scan to some of them. Anyway, more opinions please. Can we all agree that Spider-man is known for being an inventor based on how much stuff he invents in the comics, and the coverage of that he gets in reliable sources? Dream Focus 01:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, more opinions please. Can we say that Spider-man is known for commonly and consistently defined as being an inventor? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles says A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people),. Yes, reliable sources, as I have demonstrated, do commonly and consistently define his profession as being an inventor, among other things. Dream Focus 08:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Super_hero.27s_and_villains_should_fall_under_several_categories_when_applicable - SummerPhD (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2014

Firstly, I want to state that I am making an edit request for the Spider-man page, as you probably know. Secondly, the reasons I want to make an edit request are because I found more than a few spelling mistakes and some unclear information. Also, I think that we should be allowed to edit this page because if someone sees something wrong, then isn't it their right to be able to fix it? It is immoral, insensitive and unjust to take away something like that which could rightfully be in their grasp. After all, we all have free will do we not? Thank you for reading this and I hope that my message gets an immediate response. 109.145.92.137 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is protected from editing by newer editors under Wikipedia's protection policy. While the vast majority of articles are open to editing by anyone, a few articles (like this one) have repeatedly and persistently been the target of vandalism in the past and have been protected as a result. Note that you will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles. You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection. Failing those options, you can make a specific request and another editor can edit this article for you. (For example, you see spelling mistakes - what mistakes and where in the article?) --ElHef (Meep?) 23:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering 109.145.92.137's edit history it looks like he's just upset he can't vandalize this article. Nice try. Spidey104 14:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Selected story arcs"

Who chose these storylines? They're terrible and besides One More Day NONE of them are even vital story lines. Where are the death of the Stacys? Jean DeWolf? Kraven's Last Hunt? Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut? Superior Spider-Man? The Clone Saga? Why the heck is "The Gathering of Five" and "The Final Chapter" in some sort of official Wikipedia list? That's another thing, since when did Wikipedia start suggesting things to read?76.98.53.123 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on all counts. I've been WP:BOLD and removed what looked to me like particular people's POV of their favorite stories. Good catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenebrae, for doing that. I'm posting my support for the removal of that information in case anyone decides to come along and revert that edit or add the same type of section back with their selection of favorite storylines. Spidey104 19:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

Kind of need to add a few more team affiliations, because Spider-Man is also a former member of Secret Defenders, Heroes for Hire, and the New Avengers. 71.209.113.17 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 09:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Done: New Avengers was already in the list, so it was not added with the two other teams. Spidey104 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

R.H.I.N.O 117.194.243.34 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rhino already has an article of his own. What do you want changed on the Spider-Man article? Spidey104 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

you need to add and alter ego for him cause in the new comics he is Otto Gunther Octavius 173.53.126.116 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Again. When you people are tied up in form over desire to contribute you shoot yourselves in the foot. You have someone who is making a suggestion here and you are freaked out over input formatting. Rather you should be concerned about a suggested improvement to content. You people live in an echo chamber where you go through the motions of obeying the RULES OF WIKIPEDIA and forget the REASON why they were laid down. As I wrote before and it was deleted, people like me will laugh at the monthly begging for funds. It is the behavior of editors like this that get in the way of you raising more money. So you should do some more soul searching before you follow irrational scripts and instead you should embrace suggestions. For the time spent acting anal (that is not a derogatory term) you could instead have just hit google and spent time improving the article. Obviously this person making the suggestion is not going to come around again and read your response. I won't either. I find it amusing that people are reverting edits to a talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.50.79 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to add "Spider-Man' to a list of alter egos for Doctor Octopus, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put his name here. Mattie Franklin isn't listed here for the same reason.

Arjayay is too strict with the rules, because that edit request is fairly obvious.

24.57.50.79, it is derogatory to say someone is "anal". You could have said "overly obsessed with details" or something similar. Spidey104 00:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

List of girlfriends

I am removing the list of girlfriends from the article, because it does not belong there for several reasons. One, the list is incomplete. Two, the links for two out of the five characters don't even lead to an article about the character. Three, it isn't even correct; Kitty Pryde was a girlfriend of Ultimate Spider-Man and has never dated Peter Parker in the mainstream universe. Spidey104 02:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Spiderman

It's time.

There's obviously an official format for the name and, obviously, it's what we should be using for the running text in an article on someone's IP. Spider-man isn't close to getting fewer hits than his unhyphenated brother. That said, unhyphenated Spiderman is the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME of this guy, as seen at both Ngram and Google Scholar. Archive 3 seems to have some backstory and sourcing on the name. It's time for that to be included in the article, along with a bolded alt name Spiderman. — LlywelynII 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. No one will argue that Spider-Man's name is not frequently mistyped, but no one is going to argue that Caribbean should be called Carribean or Caribean. Likely misspellings is one of many reasons why redirects exist. Common misspelling does not equal common name. Spidey104 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Spider-Man has recently has a new affiliation, which is the X-Men and Jean Grey School for Higher Learning.Spider-Man and the X-Men Vol 1 #1

63.153.143.218 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

Just recently, Spider-Man got new team affliations which are the X-Men, Spider-Man and the X-Men Vol 1 #1 Jean Grey School Staff,Spider-Man and the X-Men Vol 1 #1 and The Mighty Avengers. Captain America and the Mighty Avengers Vol 1 #3

63.153.143.218 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an X-Man

Spider-Man is NOT an X-Man, being a teacher at their school does not equate membership to the team. The reactions of everyone to him being there in the first issue should be enough to tell you that, and there was nothing at all in the issue that was stated that he being there as one of Logan's last wishes in his will meant he had to join the X-Men proper. Please have the template and membership listing in the infobox removed. You can replace the membership listing with Jean Grey School, which is being used for those who are just teachers or staff at the school but not X-Men themselves like Toad, Doop, Deathlok, etc. 71.121.241.118 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Marvel comics announcement titled "Spider-Man joins the X-men". http://marvel.com/news/comics/23250/spider-man_joins_the_x-men Haven't there been many times in the past he has joined their team? I just did a quick search and found a cover that says "We are X-men" and showed Spider-man and Psylocke on it. [15] He is currently listed with the X-men at List_of_X-Men_members#Spider-Man_and_His_Amazing_Friends_.281981-1983.29. I remember them being on various episodes with him, and he visiting them all in the X-men's mansion. Dream Focus 23:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to another user who was recently adding him to various X-Men related pages, and I came to the talk here since the page is protected and I can't remove it myself. As far as him joining them in the past, I can't think of any time he's fully joined the X-Men. There's a big difference between "joining" and "working alongside for a few arcs". Spidey falls into the latter. In the first article you posted, aside from the title, which can be misleading or even interpreted in a way that doesn't mean joining the team and only working with, nothing in the article states that he fully joins the team. In fact it talks about them on several occasions as two completely separate entities who are just being essentially forced together to see what fun stories the writer can get out of it. As far as the image, look at the date at the bottom, it's over 4 years old and was used as a series of images to promote the launch of the latest adjectiveless X-Men series at that time and used to tease various guest stars for some of the arcs including Blade, Lyra, and Elektra, who clearly have never been X-Men either. And I also don't quite understand why you're bringing up the one animated series, as this is a discussion about the comics version and the things that happen in other forms of media, where he didn't join them there either, are never listed in the infoboxes for the comics versions. 71.121.241.118 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

I need to edit this article as I saw a mistake about information regarding Spider-Man. Let me edit one thing and I won't edit any more unless I need to. 109.146.219.164 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell us what the mistake is and we can fix it for you. That is the point of making an edit request. Spidey104 15:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

First month under Brand New Day programme

Consolidation of Spider-Man publications into a single, thrice-monthly Amazing Spider-Man series began with issues #546 (09 January 2008), #547 (16 January 2008), and #548 (23 January 2008).

Eroneously indicated to have been published in January 2008, Issue #549 (06 February 2008) would have represented a fourth issue for the month. I have chosen to describe my edit on the Talk page out of sensitivity to this article being semi-locked...I imagine any change merits linked references to authoritative sources, but the citations justify the correction, and do not belong in the article itself.

— Patronanejo (talk) 10:58, 02 February 2015 (UTC)

Jack Kirby

Wasn't Jack Kirby one of the people who created Spider-Man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.33.78 (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Kirby and Lee created many of the Marvel Comics characters in the 60s, but Spider-Man was Ditko and Lee. Spidey104 01:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

New Image

The main image for the article has been updated. The previous image of Spidey was dark and did not have the right color tones. In the older image, the red appeared almost purple. JosephSpiral (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The [Spider-Man.jpg] file is the one that has been the picture for the article for a long time, but the length of time of use does not guarantee that it is the best image for the article. The [Spiderman50.jpg] file is also a good picture of Spider-Man. I do agree that the [Spider-Man.jpg] file is a bit dark and the blue appears almost purple, so maybe [Spiderman50.jpg] is the better image for the article. What do other editors think? Spidey104 14:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear what other editors have to say. If the [Spider-Man.jpg] image could be uploaded with more accurate colors, I believe that would help. JosephSpiral (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The [Spider-Man.jpg] has indeed been there for a long time, and I don't recall there being any negative consequences to it. It was doing its job as the picture of Spider-Man in the article just fine. I really did not see a need to change it. If the color hues seemed a bit off (I don't believe so), it is understandable anyway as it is clearly a night time picture. Osh33m (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think [Spiderman50.jpg] should be in the infobox because it looks better than [Spider-Man.jpg]. I suppose you could say it's a better 'example' of what Spider-Man looks like. That's really all I have to say. Also I don't think it matters what picture was there first or for how long. I suppose it doesn't really matter what picture is used in the end. DangerousJXD (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's odd that a picture that didn't have the right shade of blue was replaced by one that's completely red, and is from the waist up. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if [Spider-Man.jpg]'s colors could be corrected. [Spiderman50.jpg] is not waist up; it includes his legs in their entirety. It shows as much of his costume as the previous image, but neither, unfortunately show the Spider-Man symbol on his chest. I disagree with the notion that because [Spider-Man.jpg] was there for so long, it shouldn't be replaced. By that logic, there is no room for improvement. JosephSpiral (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This image (Spider-Man50) does not show his feet, unless you're talking about Peter Parker. I thought we were looking for a shot of the costume. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized you're debating Spiderman50, without the dash. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: That's actually [Amazing Spider-Man 50.jpg] you posted. Spidey104 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The newer image, [File:Spiderman50.jpg], is on the left. The current image, [Spider-Man.jpg], is on the right.

I prefer [File:Spiderman50.jpg] over [Spider-Man.jpg]. Obviously it's true that the colors for [Spider-Man.jpg] are slightly off because it's a night-time picture, but [File:Spiderman50.jpg] is already the correct colors without having to make any edits to the image. However, I do agree with JosephSpiral that it would be nice to have a picture that shows Spider-Man's chest symbol. Does anyone know of any pictures of Spider-Man already uploaded to Wikipedia like that? Spidey104 14:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an image on Wikipedia that shows Spider-Man's chest symbol that would be appropriate for the infobox. I also prefer the newer image, [Spiderman50.jpg]. I would like to know which of the two the other editors prefer. JosephSpiral (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the daytime image is better, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the nighttime one. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do believe there is room for improvement, especially since it's the main image in the info box. This is the first image people see when viewing the Spider-Man article. It is in my opinion that the image should do Spider-Man justice, and the colors should be correct especially since it is also viewed by those unfamiliar with the character. JosephSpiral (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Spidey102 and I, JosephSpiral, favor [File:Spiderman50.jpg] (the image on the right) for the infobox. Argento Surfer, what is your vote? JosephSpiral (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[spiderman50] Argento Surfer (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a consensus, then, that we can make [Spiderman50.jpg] the infobox image, Spidey102 and Argento Surfer?

(I thought I already said what I prefer but I'll say it again) [Spiderman50.jpg] —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I believe there is consensus for the change. I am making the edit to put [Spiderman50.jpg] in the infobox. JosephSpiral (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Healing Factor?

The article lists "Healing Factor" as one of Spider-Man's powers but I'm somewhat sure he does not possess this power? Possibly in some of the comics but definitely not in the movies and I feel this should be stated.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.112.247 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book character and he does possess that power. Him not possessing the power in the films would be stated in the 'In other media' part of the article only. Spidey104 19:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source (or at least an issue of the comic) that this appears in? I don't recall ever hearing of Spider-Man having a healing factor, and I vaguely recall him using webbing as slings, casts, etc... perhaps it's more of a 'heals faster than the average human' type thing where major wounds still take a while to heal. Healing factor makes me think of Wolverine / Deadpool healing almost instantly kind of thing. Jeremiah McGowan (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeremiah McGowan, if you search up "Does Spider-Man have a healing factor?", you'll see from many different results that Spidey has a limited healing factor. So it isn't as good as Wolverine's for example. It is a thing though, he has one. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, apparently my definition of healing factor is far too small... Jeremiah McGowan (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Master hand-to-hand combatant

"Master hand-to-hand combatant" has twice been removed from the list of abilities in the character box. I think it should be included. What do other people think? Spidey104 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If it were up to me, HtH wouldn't make my list of Spider-Man's abilities. He engages in it often, but the 'master' part seems unwarranted. I don't think he's ever had formal training, and he's often overpowered. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

He had formal training by Shang-Chi when he temporarily lost his spider-sense. That particular training and his development of "spider-fu" is why I believe he qualifies. Spidey104 13:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you say that formal training is an essential part of the character, and one of his most important attributes? Incidentally, there's a similar discussion going on at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics page. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not an essential part of his character. I see your point. It should stay out. Spidey104 19:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Various levels of master/expert/skilled HtH combatant have been added to many different superhero character articles. I remove most of them when I see them, because been skilled at combat is a very common characteristic for nearly all superheroes. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Spider-Man/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

7 images, 122 citations. Not in good shape as Superman did. Close to a Vital article, not quite ready. JJ98 (Talk) 23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

File:Tom-Holland.jpg

InstinctDeluxe (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done - the last photo (of Tom Holland) is from Getty Images, thus copyrighted and not able to be used on Wikipedia. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

you spelled spider wrong 204.82.218.62 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Where? Cannolis (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Split request

Can we please add the

tag?--88.104.134.194 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean you want a set index article on all the characters that are Spider-Man within the Mainstream universe? Unless someone creates a consensus section on here. I (or someone else) can officially add the split template on the article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please do that?--88.104.134.194 (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There already is a set index of sorts here. I don't if that's worth linking to instead of creating a set index, but at the very least it's a good thing to use as a starting point if a set index article is created. Spidey104 14:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

However with recent news here http://marvel.com/news/comics/24751/miles_morales_moves_to_the_marvel_universe_in_spider-man their will be a much more distinguishing seperation of Peter Parker and Spider-Man.--88.104.131.9 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There already is a separation between Miles Morales and Peter Parker in how the articles currently stand. Spidey104 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it still isn't clear enough. No offence.--88.104.136.219 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken, but maybe you should explain why you don't think the separation is clear enough. You have only stated that you don't think it is clear and that's not going to sway any opinions. Spidey104 01:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts on this is Peter Parker is the notable character as Spider-Man. Also I don't feel like the article title should change to "Peter Parker". Sure Parker has more aliases but the alter-ego (and his aliases) aren't as familiar or notable as his superhero name. Also when people think Spider-Man, they definitely think Peter Parker before Miles Morales. So the only option here is to maybe create a set-index article. I did think that the set-index article can maybe be called "Spider-Man" while this is called "Spider-Man (Peter Parker)" just like the Miles Morales article but then I realized Spider-Man isn't the only superhero name Peter used and then cancelled that opinion.

The Alternative versions article really was already the article for that on all the Spider-Men. But if you are wanting an article focusing on the maistream version (if it's worth having its own article. Since it's already a section on the Alternative versions article) then I recommend maybe "Spider-Man (set index)". I will add your tag to have more opinions on this though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. It looks like my IP has changed but I'm still the same guy. Thanks for adding the tag.--88.104.141.99 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose. Peter Parker is the original Spider-Man. I don't think making a page for Peter Parker and a separate one to mention all the other versions of Spider-Man is a good idea. If someone will look for "Spider-Man", he'll probably look for Peter Parker, not for an index of all Spider-Mans ever. TVShowFan122 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TVShowFan122 that the average reader will be searching for the Peter Parker version of Spider-Man if they are searching for "Spider-Man".

However, I am not opposed to the creation of a set index article. This article would not change names and have a link at the top to the new article, which would probably be titled "Spider-Man (set index)". See Green Goblin (set index) as a reference for how the new article could be formatted, and this for a start on what information would be included. Spidey104 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we create the set index article then please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.129.16 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to sign.--88.104.129.16 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We need to remember that things are All-New All-Different now though. While just a few years ago another Spider like Miles Morales would hardly be search for things change.--88.104.129.16 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Things do change, but we cannot predict how things will change. If things change enough to warrant this split it can be done in the future. Currently it is not warranted. Spidey104 02:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the new comics come out before we decide what to do.Iady391 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyway for this discussion to skip the 30 day limit from the archive bot and stay open until around October time when the new comics come out? Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this just as I would splitting Batman. Public consciousness is clear that Peter Parker is the main Spider-Man, and who people mean by "Spider-Man", though the successors also deserve mention.Zythe (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose split. Peter Parker has been Spider-Man for 53 years. The fact that others have taken up that name at times, isn't relevant, nor some far less popular alternate version. Dream Focus 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Spider-Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120229055224/http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/5021372.php to http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/5021372.php?
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141213214044/http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=11804771 to http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=11804771
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100214095738/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i0040e099982664b684cff507e86c3a14? to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i0040e099982664b684cff507e86c3a14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Enemies Request

There is no real indication as to whether the enemies listed in Spider-man's rogues gallery are minor or major. How many issues beyond the first appearance must a character appear in order to become a major character? Are we only including characters which directly contribute to character development? Also, why not list notable characters Spider-man faced which almost killed him or those that challenged his intellect as well as his physique? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettWarr1 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's very subjective. There is no specific guideline for who should be included and who shouldn't be included. If there's an enemy you think should be included make your case for them here on the talk page (please remember to sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment) and it can be discussed by many editors of whether that character should be included or not. Spidey104 04:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternate/Incarnations

Currently, part of the header reads "Separately, Marvel has also published books featuring alternate versions of Spider-Man, including Spider-Man 2099, which features the adventures of Miguel O'Hara, the Spider-Man of the future; Ultimate Spider-Man, which features the adventures of a teenaged Peter Parker in an alternate universe; and Ultimate Comics Spider-Man, which depicts the teenager Miles Morales, who takes up the mantle of Spider-Man after Ultimate Peter Parker's supposed death.", but these (with the exception of Ultimate Pete) are not alternate versions of Spider-Man, as the link contained within it defines them. Instead, they would be classified in a different list, List of incarnations of Spider-Man. This should be fixed.2601:446:4300:A467:A1E7:A615:327F:2C8 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 2099 and Miguel don't appear on either list. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016

Spider-Man's favorite TV show is Comedy Bang! Bang! (TV series). (This should be added to the character's biography.)

Toeibannedme (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You have not provided a reason why that is encyclopedic information (e.g. if it is widely discussed in reliable sources). It seems like WP:FANCRUFT to me that does not belong in Wikipedia. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Profile Image Change

Anyone can put one of these images: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/spiderman/images/7/79/Amazing_Spider-Man_Vol._4_-1_Campbell_Variant_textless.png/revision/latest?cb=20151013122909, http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/spiderman/images/2/25/Amazing_Spider-Man_Vol._4_-1_Bagley_Variant_textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151013122841, http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/spiderman/images/3/36/Amazing_Spider-Man_Vol._4_-2_Textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151013162525, http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/spiderman/images/1/1a/Amazing_Spider-Man_Vol_4_3_Dell%27Otto_Variant_Textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151013162632 -TeQuatro (talk) TeQuatro (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say the Bagley image does show the full costume better than the extant image. The others all obscure the costume or have distracting background elements. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the Bagley image would be best too. It's bright and shows the whole costume as well as him swinging.*Treker (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reception

The section does sound puffery. Spider-Man is well received and is one of the greatest comic book characters and superheroes of all time is extremely gushy hyperbolic, fannish language. This is non-encyclopedic WP:TONE. CerberaOdollam (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Danny Fingeroth's Superman on the Couch has a detailed look at what makes the character so popular. It would be a good reference for this section. I'm not sure if it's available on Google books. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename

Given that Miles Morales is also known as Spider-Man, I believe that this page should be renamed "Spider-Man (Peter Parker)", or simply "Peter Parker". Signed: NurseLine247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurseline247 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This version is still clearly the primary topic.★Trekker (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the article is primary for the original version of the character, and not necessary of renaming.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Spider-Man (Peter Parker).png

Hi. I would like to add the image File:Spider-Man (Peter Parker).png to the character infobox because it features the character's new costume. But I do not want to start an edit war so I start this discussion.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Wikipedia:Recentism and because the suggested image is shadowy. It's a neat looking picture, but it's not an ideal one to use to display the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Spider-Man. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/artist/arcomicf.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=151%3Darticle
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021220521/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/13.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/13.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/619vQb9C5?url=http://www.deadline.com/2010/01/urgent-spider-man-4-scrapped-as-is-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/ to http://www.deadline.com/2010/01/urgent-spider-man-4-scrapped-as-is-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501090333/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/141945-Reeve-Carney-Jennifer-Damiano-Patrick-Page-to-Star-in-Spider-Man-Performances-Begin-in-November to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/141945-Reeve-Carney-Jennifer-Damiano-Patrick-Page-to-Star-in-Spider-Man-Performances-Begin-in-November

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Spider-Man. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/artist/arcomicf.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5eea8wTXN?url=http://alnickerson.blogspot.com/2009/02/who-really-created-spider-man.html to http://alnickerson.blogspot.com/2009/02/who-really-created-spider-man.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qn5Uiwyw?url=http://www.reelzchannel.com/article.aspx?articleId=292 to http://www.reelzchannel.com/article.aspx?articleId=292
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5qn5Uiwyw?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reelzchannel.com%2Farticle.aspx%3FarticleId%3D292
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5qkzIuMKI?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicbookresources.com%2F%3Fpage%3Darticle&id=12230
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5qkz3fKei?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicbookresources.com%2F%3Fpage%3Darticle&id=12238
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117105307/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146654-Troubled-Spider-Man-Turn-Off-the-Dark-Delays-Broadway-Opening-Again to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146654-Troubled-Spider-Man-Turn-Off-the-Dark-Delays-Broadway-Opening-Again

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spider-Man. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ditko.comics.org/ditko/artist/arcomicf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209132157/http://www.glennsacks.com/in_defense_of_spiderman.htm to http://www.glennsacks.com/in_defense_of_spiderman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)