Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home

Poster

Now that there are two teaser posters, which one do we use? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Most likely the new one because it’s probably the official poster Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They're both official. I don't know if we should be calling the new one a "teaser poster" as well, but this is definitely not the theatrical release poster because there's no billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The one released previously with just Spider-Man and without Doctor Strange seems more of the "teaser" poster in my view, but neither are the "release poster" so it honestly doesn't matter as long as there isn't warring over which one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain the differences between Teaser poster and official poster? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We should use the new official one revealed today. https://images.thedirect.com/media/photos/FFBVo2XaMAA8ydw.jpg MarvelMovieFan (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a Japanese theatrical release poster so I prefer using the official English poster released by Sony. Centcom08 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are all official posters (i.e. created by Sony), but like Centcom08 said the one released today is just the Japanese international poster. We usually stick to the U.S. release poster because this is an American film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ijick, kindly refrain from edit warring as this is a discussion you can read to understand how film poster works. Thank you! Centcom08 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

According to sources, that is the official theatrical release poster. But, I won't use it. How, do we know which is the official poster for the film? Thank you.

This poster says both "Coming soon" and "Only in Cinemas" (which is not really an American phrase), versus the existing one we have which says "Exclusively in theaters" (an American phrase) plus the date. So that one is preferable. They are both teaser posters anyways, and we'll probably get the theatrical release one Monday along with tickets going on sale. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the tweet from Sony Pictures Japan with the international poster. No sources indicate that this is the the official theatrical release poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that poster was posted by the American Sony Pictures social media with the December 17 date AxGRvS (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"It is intended to be the sequel"

This phrasing is awkward and unnecessary.

• It isn't intended to be the sequel - it is the sequel (that's what reliable sources say) until something else happens. If the film is canceled or something then we can change this.
• It doesn't fix the perceived problem. Readers will not think "ah, it says 'intended to be' because the film has not been released yet". They'll just think it's strange wording.

Let's get rid. Popcornfud (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the practice to used intended for an upcoming film. Once it is released, it will be removed. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Where/when was the consensus for this practice agreed? Is it used for anything other than superhero movies? I have worked on literally hundreds of film articles and I have never seen it before. Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "intended" is a poor choice of words. "Upcoming" or "as yet unreleased" might be more precise in meaning. DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we chould use "set" instead of intended, the same we use it to say it's set to be released in... —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we say "upcoming" in the first sentence, so I think it's safe to just be simple from then on. IMO there's nothing misleading about describing this film as a sequel even though it isn't released yet. It's a sequel, that's what it is. Popcornfud (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any further opinions? If not, any objections if I remove this? Popcornfud (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is poor.. it isn't "intended" to be anything.. it actually IS the sequel. Even if it never gets released it's still a sequel and the wording would become "it is the unreleased sequel to".. in this case "the upcoming sequel" is probably most appropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we can remove it, they are right in that it's excessive and unnecessary if we are already saying it is an upcoming film. Still, I'm pinging other regular editors for their insight, since this decision will affect other articles on upcoming MCU media: @Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, Trailblazer101, and InfiniteNexus: —El Millo (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it still has to be a case by case basis per each upcoming film. At least in Marvel's case, they can present a film one way initially, and then as it get closer to release and more details are given, it becomes apparent it may be something else, or something in addition to. For example, The Marvels upon initial learning of it, was only thought to be an intended sequel to Captain Marvel. But after we got the name, it appears to be a sequel to Captain Marvel and continuations of Ms. Marvel and to an extent WandaVision. So I don't think we go through all upcoming projects and remove "intended to be", but if we remove it here, sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, the "intended to be" part is used as we don't always know what they will definitively be right away. Like the use of "upcoming", the property has yet to release, so saying it is the sequel may give off some misinterpretation that it is the next film despite it not having been released. In this instance, No Way Home could also serve as a continuation of the past Spider-Man films. We can leave it for the time being, but the film is releasing in around 2 weeks, so I can see the reason why it could be removed at this time, but I think we can just as easily wait until it premieres (which is undoubtedly less than that time, if not by a few days), so there's not much harm in waiting. I don't see any need to remove it from every other MCU article, though. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue will resolve itself when the film is released and - surprise - turns out to definitively be the sequel to the previous film, but as this is apparently the set wording used across other Marvel movie articles, it's something we need to resolve.

Really, I just think the whole idea is silly - a kind of tree-falling-in-the-woods nonsense. By the same logic, we also ought to write "Spider-Man: No Way Home is intended to be an American superhero film released in 2021", "It is intended to be distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing", and "It is intended to star Tom Holland". Popcornfud (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. Even though the film has not been released yet, it is still the sequel to Homecoming and Far From Home. We don't say The film ... will star Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man alongside ..., despite the fact that the actors haven't technically "appeared" in the film yet. Regarding Favre and Trailblazer101's points about The Marvels and older Spider-Man films, we're just going with what we know thus far. If there are any later developments, we can just update the wording then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. JOEBRO64 17:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Church & Ifans

This is already a discussion by someone else so I’ll repeat it, tom and Rhys are not confirmed to be returning, only their characters, and I’ll keep restoring my edit until y’all stop Redsuperman819 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would be edit-warring. Please stop this behavior or you may be blocked. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

But the information is wrong dumbass Redsuperman819 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PA, your arguments would be taken more seriously if you refrained from personal attack and insults. - Richiekim (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

😒 Redsuperman819 (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's take a step back and look at what we know.

• These are clearly the same incarnations of Sandman and Lizard from Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man, judging from the trailer and RSs. Also worth noting, Sandman is clearly using Thomas Haden Church's likeness.
• Entertainment Weekly and Variety (two of the highest quality sources in this field) refer to them as portrayed by Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans.
• We don't have a billing block yet. The closest we have is https://www.spidermannowayhome.movie/synopsis/, which doesn't list any of the villain actors. Molina, Foxx, and Dafoe have confirmed they're in it themselves/were confirmed by other crew members.
• RSs indicate that Church and Ifans reprise their roles but they do not have the level of confirmation that the others have.

I personally think there's enough to list Church and Ifans, but of course we should really try to come to a concrete consensus for now. JOEBRO64 19:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "RS" stand for? As to the Church/Ifans issue, I'm still don't think they should be included. I've previously mentioned how similar this is to teaser-trailer Willem Dafoe debate. Goblin's iconic laugh was heard in the trailer and people were quick to assume it was Dafoe, though there was no direct confirmation yet. Variety's article from August stated the following: "...will bring Holland together with villains of previous Spider-Man cinematic franchises. This includes Alfred Molina’s Doctor Octopus, Jamie Foxx’s Electro, and Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin." Molina and Foxx were already confirmed by the trades and the actors themselves, but no such confirmation on either front regarding Dafoe, despite the article using the actors' names as a preface, so to speak. No different for Variety and EW's article on the new trailer. Of course, now Dafoe is confirmed because Tom Holland expressly said so. As to the characters echoing the likeness of Church and Ifans, that's irrelevant. There's a solid possibility the characters won't be seen in their human form or speak (or if they do, voiced by the same actors). If Church and Ifans were part of No Way Home, high-quality sources like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood would have devoted a whole article to this information by now, like they almost always do with famous actors joining film and television projects. But here's the difficulty in that happening: let's say Church and Ifans are in the film and there are sources privy to this information that could easily and anonymously tell a reporter. That wouldn't happen because this is one of the most highly anticipated films in recent years and these outlets would not want to be in any more hot water with the studios desparately working to preserve the film's surprises. Same goes for Maguire, Garfield, and Charlie Cox. I'm sure plenty of Variety's handy sources know, but they would never publish it. By all accounts, the confirmation of Molina and Foxx were accidents. Molina disclosed information in a random interview and Foxx confirmed it in an Instagram post which he soon deleted. Forgive my idiom, but we only know limes, not lemons, so we shouldn't run with a lemon-juice edit without that concrete information. I don't understand why they must stay and I truly believe the counterarguments are running off of assumptions and faulty inductive reasoning. Snowshredder140 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.. there is no hurry to include them if we are not 100% sure the actors appear... and no RS have really confirmed them to that extent. The movie comes out soon enough, they should not be on there at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

RS refers to WP:RS, to answer that question. giftheck (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So the consensus continues to lean toward removing the actors. Should we wait a few more days before doing so? Perhaps until after Monday November 29th when tickets go on sale and a possible new trailer simultaneously releases with potential new info? We could also take this to the noticeboard. Snowshredder140 (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus definitely isn't leaning towards removal. Reliable sources state they are involved in the film, and per WP:VNT, they can be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

But this is not verifiable info. This is faulty inductive reasoning grounded in the idea that since these highly reliable sources are mentioning the characters by their actors' names alongside the confirmed villains, that it passes the bar for confirmation. We have no idea whether Variety, Entertainment Weekly, or Empire knows Church's or Ifans's involvement to be true and I don't think it wise to make generalizations or conclusions based on good faith and/or such unclear semantics. Snowshredder140 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, at least for me, that while this is very much at the same state Dafoe's involvement was when we had that original discussion, his confirmation somehow lowers the bar for how tight we need the confirmation to be. Virtually every reliable source is reporting Church and Ifans as confirmed, and now it seems enough. I remember some outlets had cast doubt into Dafoe's involvement after the laugh and before a more explicit confirmation, and these outlets aren't doubting Church and Ifans now. —El Millo (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, these aren't confirmations. It's a semantic misinterpretation because these sources are REFERRING to the characters by their unconfirmed previous actors' names in the same paragraph as the confirmed villains', without knowing if these sources actually know their return to be true. Their return may be probable per inductive reasoning, but anything truly verifiable has yet to emerge. Snowshredder140 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Box Office Projection

I want to delete the part where it says that "No Way Home outpaced Endgame in it's first day of pre-sales" because it didn't. It actually had the biggest pre-sales since Endgame (which I would say would put it in 2nd place of highest first day of pre-sales). Here's my source, straight from Fandango= https://twitter.com/Fandango/status/1465727327267078144?s=20

Please allow me to make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:91:0:116:79fe:e9e4:ab42:f4ea (talk) 18:25, 30 November, 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The source says it outpaced Endgame. JOEBRO64 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Only Deadline did but they twisted the words (and were the only ones to claim such thing). The most professiona; take on this would be to cite the main source, Fandango which reported the following: "#SpiderManNoWayHome had Fandango's biggest first 24-hours in pre-sales since Avengers: Endgame." https://twitter.com/Fandango/status/1465727327267078144?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.141.24 (talk) 21:43, 30 November, 2021 (UTC)

Final Spider-Man MCU film?

Since there’s no official confirmation at all Spider-Man will continue in the MCU should this be considered the final MCU Spider-Man film? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation that it is the final film, so no. Spanneraol (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's rather closer to the opposite, since Amy Pascal said there are more Spider-Man films with Marvel Studios to come. —El Millo (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you get my newest message “Insiders” said that there’s been no official confirmation despite Pascal’s official statement. I’m just unsure of what’s legit right now and what isn’t. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

But it was just said there’s no official confirmation despite what Pascal said. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No confirmation of further films doesn't mean confirmation of no further films. And no confirmation doesn't mean that what Pascal said means nothing. Pascal is the producer. —El Millo (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing the part up top before the premise talking about another trilogy.

Is that our way of saying that they’re not doing anything? I mean shouldn’t that be kept up top for right now? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Billing block

The new poster doesn't include a billing block. The only thing we have for the cast is the order in the SpiderManMovie and Sony Pictures websites, which excludes Dafoe, Molina, Foxx, Chruch, and Ifans. What we do? AxGRvS (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I say we work off of Sony Pictures' cast order until the film releases and we see the onscreen credits. Snowshredder140 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree but I did that and my edit was reverted AxGRvS (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We go by the poster billing block, it's likely that soon a version of the poster with a billing block will appear. There's WP:NORUSH to change the approach. —El Millo (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious for this film since they are trying their best to hold back actor appearances, if they will not release a poster with a billing block until after the opening day of the film? That would be a bit unheard of, but I think a possibility. While it is still likely we'll get a final final poster between now and the 17th, should we not, we should used the order in the titles/main on end of the film (with caution given to any actors appearing in a grouping ie their name is not the only one appearing on the screen at that moment [those actors are generally not in poster billings]). And then finally, way down the line, the physical media of the film can be used to determine a billing if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've many times seen a final poster without a billing block be later released with a billing block. Same art, basically the same poster, except for the billing block being added. —El Millo (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

With all this uncertainty, maybe we shouldn't assume that this is the theatrical release poster and just call it a promotional poster instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

With the recent "Return of the Villains" video it seems the billing block is Holland, Zendaya, Cumberbatch, Batalon, Favreau, and Tomei, just like the film's official websites AxGRvS (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Guys, we have a billing block, taken outside the premiere event (by a verified reporter). If you zoom into the second image, it looks like they're using the same billing order as the one on the NWH site. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's still on the teaser poster, and as we've discussed, there will probably be an updated one post-release, but this is a start. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That's actually a brand new poster. But they're doing a bang up graphics arts job between all these different posters with the same poses its hard to keep them all straight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Tom Holland on the Graham Norton Show, his brother's scenes have been cut from the film.

Source since the clips uploaded officially don't cover that moment: https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/03/tom-hollands-brother-harry-cut-from-spider-man-no-way-home-15714537/

I don't think we should remove the casting but it definitely be mentioned. HOWEVER - I am aware that, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources the Metro is classed as a generally non-reliable source. Personally, I might wait for a more reliable publication to report on this before making the change. giftheck (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, there's no rush to include this and we'll have to wait for a reliable source to report on it. —El Millo (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant reported it, so I have added it to the article. —El Millo (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire

Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire should be added as featured actors in this film. I've seen 3 Spidermen in multiple trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:1:8DC:49EF:AAB5:8385:61A1 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are unsourced rumors, please see the plethora of past discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those rumors are proven true as shown in these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1-L5Q0ov80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAq-RcF8n8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JQJ32-LYfg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:1:D5C:A138:EAE4:3DFA:A761 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are, embarrassingly fake. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We don’t include actors in credits unless there are reliable, independent sources to support inclusion. To this point, there are none, only rumors. Spf121188 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. They will not appear in the credits unless official verified sources confirm, or their names appear in the credits of the actual movie. We will know in a few short days whether they are even in the movie or not AlienChex (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Credits from today's premiere just confirmed that Tobey Maguire is in the movie. Premiere Credits leak: https://twitter.com/Moth_Culture/status/1470642070045999106

Daredevil "confirmed"

"If you were to see Daredevil in upcoming things, Charlie Cox, yes, would be the actor playing Daredevil. Where we see that, how we see that, when we see that, remains to be seen". Is that tongue-in-cheek or serious? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It only means that if ever Marvel Studios going to use Daredevil as part of their project then Charlie Cox will be the actor, 100℅. It doesn't mean that he will appear in No Way Home (yet) so it remains hidden in the Cast section of the article until we watch the film together and find it out ourselves. Centcom08 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

MJ's credit:

I think MJ needs to be credited as Michelle "MJ" Jones, as that's her name Advofspec (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

She should be credited as MJ as that is what the credits say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors all official credits from billing order to credited name. AlienChex (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it "Lizard" or "The Lizard"

Dr. Curt Connors is listed on this page as Dr. Curt Connors/Lizard, but for The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) page, he is listed as Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard, so should I change it to that for this page? Advofspec (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Change info-box release date section to include UK release date of 15th December 2021 MoonyCekcu (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Only the world premiere and release date in the country of origin (US) need to be in the infobox. — Starforce¹³ 21:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Singles

So here's something really weird. The track "Arachnoverture" from the film's score was released as a single on Thursday, per this source. The same source also reported that a second single titled "Exit Through the Lobby" would be released yesterday. But as Favre1fan93 noted here, both tracks appear to have been removed from Spotify, YouTube, and other platforms. After some digging, I was still able to find the links to both tracks (1: Spotify, YT; 2: Spotify, YT), but none are playable for me. I don't know if this is a U.S.-only thing, so are the links playable for other editors? If not, should we hide or remove the info from the article? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Favre has just hidden the info. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @InfiniteNexus: I've gone ahead in my edit just before this on the article and commented them out. I found what you did, them on Spotify and YouTube, but unavailable. We should probably hold off until they are available again, and when ever that is, I don't know if we could confidently say they "released" on the 9th or 10th, respectively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The music was unplayable as well here on my end (the Philippines) Centcom08 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No Way Home Spoliers

When will No Way Home Spoliers be added to this page, for example in the case that Tobey Maguire showed up in No Way Home, when would he be added to the wikipedia? On the 17th or after? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisrussian (talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the 16th as it'll be in general release by Thursday evening. DonQuixote (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't particularly bothered by spoilers as people visiting this page anytime after today are likely looking for plot leaks. The plot will go up whenever someone who has seen the movie writes one up, but most will be extremely unverified until the 17th. AlienChex (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In the UK it is on 15th by the way. Mike210381 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who have watched the film can add the film's plot (as per WP:SPOILER) but make sure that it is correct as to avoid the repeat of what happened to Eternals when someone added a fake plot and got called out by media. Centcom08 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Editors: Jeffrey Ford and Leigh Folsom Boyd. It says so on the poster (by a verified source): https://twitter.com/BrandonDavisBD/status/1470439136691515396/photo/2 98.5.41.204 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That tweet is not a reliable source, and the poster is far too small to make out clearly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No 'No Way Home' Spoilers

Here's a request to Wikipedia editors. Can you kindly not leak or spoil anything for atleast 5 days after the movie has been released. Thank You.

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you don't want spoilers, don't visit Wikipedia pages. 2405:205:C909:A238:648A:9BDF:B86B:EF96 (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say how Wikipedia works? Where does it say that Wikipedia has to post spoilers on the day of the movie release?

Kindly read WP:SPOILER. Anyone who watched the film starting today can post it on the article. Centcom08 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The article WP:SPOILER doesn't mention when spoilers can be added to an article. So it conflicts with your words "who watched the film starting today". You might need to re-read the article once again before you refer it to anyone.

I'm assuming the unsigned comments are all the anonymous user who has not signed their comments, but as per WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." It does not matter who has seen the film or when. The things in the article have been reported on by sources that are reliable for this subject. Ergo, it is not acceptable to remove them. I would wager that the full plot will appear tomorrow, when the film starts releasing to general audiences and it's easier to write a proper plot section. If you don't want to be spoiled, it's best to stay away from this article. giftheck (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay bruh. Do whatever you want. Go ahead and spoil the movie. But we'll make sure that we'll cancel for spoiling it.

Tobey Maguire Confirmed

Credits from today's premiere just confirmed that Tobey Maguire is in the movie. Premiere Credits leak: https://twitter.com/Moth_Culture/status/1470642070045999106

We need a reliable source since Twitter is considered a self-published source, which is not acceptable (as per WP:SELFPUBLISH Centcom08 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. Even Wikipedia is a self-publish source. Guess even Wikipedia is unreliable.

Please No Spoilers

Please don't spoil the film please. For example, if Batman appears in No Way Home, I want to be surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.186.113 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if they do, let's handover these so called 'editors' to Tiktokers. They know how to cancel these uncultured swines.

Don't Spoil No Way Home

Spider-Man: No Way Home official sources have officially warned not to spoil the movie. - Chip3004 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)