This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am not familiar with the character Tarantula. In what DC comic did this character appear?
Rick Norwood 01:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Um... what?? Tarantula and Black tarantula were Marvel characters... but DC? Isnt there a link to that then?
Will MC2 merge with marvel giving Peter and Mary Jane hope about their daughter May?
There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth editing taking place with respect to who gets mentioned on the short-list of "most famous" villains since the Spider-Man Enemies list was shortened to a "see also" link.
Obviously Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom (despite the nearly equal love/hate ratio for that last character) deserve this mention, but is that all? I've seen various names such as Carnage (unlikely), Mysterio (maybe), and the Lizard (guilty, I'm afraid) added to that entry, but it's always a temporary change. Doc Ock first appeared in 1963, Green Goblin in 1964, and Venom in 1988. Are there no other Spidey villains from all those intervening years that deserve to be added to the elite "most famous" list?
The Lizard 15 November 2005
List of significant stories as a new Article, with more detell info. Brown Shoes22 06:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I actually totally lost what was going on here when they decidd that every bloody story would involve a cross-over!. I stopped buying them at about that time, which is a pity because they are fantastic comics. I recently purchased them all on CD (well, up till about2004, anyway) and was so frustrated by this again that I missed the entire clone wars. Is it possible to buy the Spectacular Spiderman, etc. on CD? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen it around, on the internet and at flea markets, but didn't look "legal", if you know what I mean. Tomservo3000 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Im new to wiki and while i was roaming discovered that some moron had deleted the whole Spider-man article. I went into the page history and copyed the pervious unvandalized code and pasted it to make the aricle work again. Hope i did it correctly thanks, Toxin 11:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If Spidey's new costume affects all the canonical titles, should it replace the main shb image until the original one is restored? --DrBat 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The wiki says that Moxy Fruvous has reworked the theme, and that they often been miscredited as They Might Be Giants.
However, They Might Be Giants have done a reworking of the Spider-man theme. The song, Particle Man, appears on their 1990 album, Flood.
Someone added the category Fictional Protestants. Since when has any religious affiliation for Peter Parker ever been established? On the assumption that someone got carried away, I'm removing it. If I'm wrong, please correct me and tell me when that was established because I'd like to know. I read the article about his probable religion. It did not rule out Catholicism. It did not establish that he's Christian. Wryspy 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I just skimmed through " A detailed analysis of why J. Michael Straczynski's 'Sins Past' storyline does not fit into the established Spider-Man mythos" Erm, is this really an important enough opinionated, self indulgent rant to warrent a link? i mean, blimey.Mister cope 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is Spider-Man in the anti-hero category? Granted, he acts without police approval and has been known to let anger/obsession get in the way of what he does, but when I think "anti-hero", I think of Punisher or Wolverine.
Did the poster that put him in this category confuse Peter with the Ben Reilly version (which I am not familiar with) or are they basing his judgment from the Alien Costume saga or one of the "revenge" arcs?
Does anyone else think the Spider-Man#People_who_know_Peter_Parker_is_Spider-Man section would better serve as a list? It's getting rather long and such extensive knowledge isn't really relevent to the general page. Really, who cares if Carrion or Scorpion know he's Peter Parker? A sentence or two summarizing the important people who know who he is should suffice, yes? --Rocketgoat 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Another question of mine is that : Shouldn't we indicate on the same list the serial number and name of the issue where he/she first discovers Spider-Man's face? It would serve as reference to what is stated. Until then everyone can state names without letting us know where the information comes from. Lajbi 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed this new name from the list of people who knows Spider-Man's identity, because - as I intiated - the uploader marked the number of issue when the act of revealing happened as being the one published in Marvel Team-up vol. 14. I've just read it and it's about Narmor, the Sub-Mariner and a new villain called Fish-Man...
Lajbi 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a different Marvel Team-Up #14. The issues with Invincible is from the CURRENT Marvel Team-Up volume, volume 3. And yes, Invincible DID learn his identity in said issue. --Venomaru 02:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry for removing it... Lajbi 09:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh, while it wasn't my entry to begin with, it was a mistake anyone could have made, so no problem. --Venomaru 15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The article states that the little light in his belt buckle displays an image of his mask, but isn't it actually an image of the circular red spider from the back of his costume? In the animated series it was, at least. (btw isn't it odd how he has web-shooters and a utility belt under his costume, yet being a full-body skintight suit you'd think you'd be able to see them?)
Removed the "too brief to mention" question... added a brief note about it in the costumes section, before I did.
I'd like to remove the argument about whether or not Spidey will be wearing a black costume or not in the new movie. Here's what the official movie site has to say, "You may think you’re looking at a black and white photo. Look closely, Spider-Man wears a black suit in Spider-Man 3. Tobey Maguire returns as Peter Parker / Spider-Man in Spider-Man 3. In Theaters 5/4/07." Anyone object? -Digresser 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Spidey has both black and red in Spidey 3. Photos exist. June 9 06.
Spider-Man has stingers, in addition to Spider-Man 2099. Removed post about him from April to clean up the discussion. June 9 2006
Until the original costume is back, I think the new one should remain.--CyberGhostface 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't think Ultimate Spiderman should be mentioned on the basis that he's another character in another universe and a separate article. Still, if's temporary, our hands are almost tied.
Personally, I like change, but Spidey's new suit and gear make him look kind of...evil. I wouldn't be surprised if he switches back during the civil war. Ace Class Shadow 17:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmph. Heh. It's always erily funny to see a non-GIPU vandal (of sorts). Perhaps something should be...done if he persists without even so much as an edit summary? Goodness knows he doesn't seem to be the most talkitive, bright or reasonable of fellows. - Ace Class Shadow 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
He speaks! Holy crap! It's a miracle! ::Angels sing::
You really shouldn't assume, though, dude. I'm referring to the "Readers don't care" thing. Just think about this for a moment. A person could be outside, playing a game, watching TV, Et Cetera, BUT they choose to read about ol' spidey on Wikipedia and you think they "Don't care". Riight. I must be stupid or something because that just don't add up to me, Missah T.
Now, if you had said, "It might be confusing" or something to that effect, you'd have a decent argument, but taking the time to find this article should be proof enough that the reader cares.
As far as I'm concerned, this is no different than any other comics article and the rules are the same. You use an image that depicts the comics character in their most recent form and outfit. Look at Dick Grayson for example. Now, going by your logic, no one cares about his new outfit. To most people, Dick Grayson is Robin, right? The boy wonder wearing Red and Green. How dare they use the Nightwing image! Blue and Black?! No one will recognize him! The humanity! The humanity! Ace Class Shadow 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Ha...No. Funny thing about that. There was a similar suggestion in the Kon-El article. They didn't like the current image and wanted to use the one with Raven and the other superboys. Thing is, whatever disagreements they had with the current image, they couldn't use the superboys one (although it was the main image when i first started editting there) because it didn't show enough of Conner's physical details (new hairstyle for one) and cunfusingly featured various other characters. That image——which led me to believe spidey might change back in a CW (Not the craptastic new network)——while seemingly good, would be even worse overall. You can't see most/any details beyond his split face and shows far to many other characters. (Looks more like a new Secret Wars team image, really.)
The simple fact is that the new suit, as far as we objectively know, is just another costume change. It happens. Unless he changes back, we shouldn't either. Ace Class Shadow 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Cy. You fold easier than a laptop. No. He's not right. The storyline is in the main continuity and his current suit's being feature in all new releases. This isn't like...say...when Spidey was changing his suit for specific tasks. Everything's changed. His powers, his appearance (out of costume, that is), his mindset, his whole way of life for crying outloud! In fact, thinking about it more, maybe we should even consider added his old suit to the "Costumes" page. >.>
But however we feel about the suit, it's his main, if not only uniform as far as we know. Honestly, looking at how big the article is, we'd actually be doing a disservice not displaying it in his box. I, personally, didn't recognize the S-man when i first saw the Civil War promo art. Having to look through the article to find his current uniform listed like it's just another variant is bad idea. Besides, if push comes to shove, we will have to add it sooner or later. Why delay the inevitable? Ace Class Shadow 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry. In that case, you're my new best friend, Cy! >.> Ace Class Shadow 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Current Spider-man"? Hibba-Jibba wha? They're the same guy. >.>
No one is violating "NPOV" (I thought that was a term/acronym, not the policy's name). I'm all for some nod to Spidey's old suit and fully acknowledge the history you keep going on about, but he's still changed his suit. Since i've already brought up Dick, let me try to give you a better example of our sitation. Look at the Doc Ock Article. NO BOWL CUT! That's the kinda situation we have here. Now, most/all remember a slightly overweight guy with a bowl cut. However, the current image displays his most recent look, not his most popular or well known. Ask me why. Ace Class Shadow 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Well, it's because superheroboxes, like many other kinds of boxes on Wikipedia, need to display the most accurate and up to date information, images, what have you. Sure, if we didn't have a picture of Spidey's crimson and gold suit, there wouldn't even be a debate, but we do! Thus, I feel it's just common sense to use it. Just like it's common sense that the Doc Ock article use the image it does. Now, the Blue Devil article, for example, uses a fairly old image. The Bart Allen article uses an image of bart in his oldd and new/current suits. What it really comes down to is using the most appropriate image in the SHB at the time. At this time, Iron-Spider is it!
Now, unless T-1000 has anymore he'd like to add, I think this will be my closing argument and finish it off with my personal label for this whole debate: Case Closed! Ace Class Shadow 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Dstorres, you're not often right, and you're wrong again (I know this kills my chances of ever being an admin, but WTH, my last RFA suggested it was never going to happen anyway and I needed to say it, it being true from my experiences with him :))
And, as for SHB costumes elsewhere, I see Spider-Man and Superman as special cases (Batman and perhaps Wonder Woman are almost in the same boat, but they've had bigger variations). 'Sides, it's explicitly temporary (expect it to disappear about halfway through Civil War, when Spidey switches from Iron Man's side to Cap's side), and we have to consider merchandise, movies, etc, Marvel Adventures, Ultimate, etc too - SoM 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
or just read: NRAMA: Oh brother… Focus, Joe, focus…
Can you give us some insight as to how long this costume will be part of the Spider-Man mythos. Some fans and retailers have astutely pointed out that with a movie coming out in mid-2007, it’s more than likely Peter will be back in familiar duds by then? Thoughts?
JQ: Now that the Spider movies at are #3 it’s less and less important and there are plenty of trades with the blue and red. That said. JMS has a definitive plan as to when the costume appears and leaves. It’s his decision.
As I said, its till JMS is done with the story. Which he apparently is planning to be done around 2007. Not as temporary as some would like it but thats still over a year away (since they didn't say Jan 1st of 2007). Isn't that the arguement you used with me on Wolverine SOM??? Dstorres
You obviously didnt' look at today's Wolverine: Origins then did you? The one with the nice Turner cover in his brown suit. Dstorres
Look, even if it is temporary its still remaining on all the titles for the forseeable future. I don't see why you can't let it stand for that amount of time.--CyberGhostface 22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just put it to a vote to see which image stays for now? Dstorres
Hello,
There is a weird sentence all at the end of the wikipedia entry. I cannot delete it. What is it please?
"i am in love with spiderman he is awesome i LOVE him i KNOW HE IS REAL he loves me ok im not crazy he LOVES me ok i love him were getting married and you cant stop us ok"? Yeah. I removed that before you commented. Vandalism. I hope (s)he seeks help if they were serious. You probably tried to edit it out right after I finished. The Anti-Gnome 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not original research; it specifically states in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man that they activate against magical opponents. Thanos6 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I clearly wasn't throwing a tantrum, its simply annoying. He's simply wrong. So you're buying the supernatural thing then to clarify? I'll remove the majority of the caps and just leave the jist!sorry... I especially dont like the swearing. Ur the dick who said "it specifically states in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man that they activate against magical opponents" which was actually just a bare-faced lie. THATS why i had a go in caps, i dont like liars. It just seemed like you wanted to add something, whether it was right or not! To quote that very marvel comic book, which (for now, lets say) is canon... "El muerto's strength and... were almost enough to unmask Spider-Man,... a poisonous stinger reflexively sprung". Im afraid that's all we got. ChocolateRoses 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Urgh, your pretentious. U changed it back when i put a good point forward as to why it should change and u originally didnt give a reason. THEN U called me a dick, and i responded. It's done. It's over. fine. nice chattin with you
It really wasn't meant as anything personal, it was just taken that way and i apologise. it's all distracted from the issue at hand. i'll take the strikethrough thing away though. thankyou.ChocolateRoses 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)