Talk:Spider-Man: One More Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Spider-Man: One More Day has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 25, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Comics / Marvel / Spider-Man (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


An editor has complained that the reception section is too biased. While that's understandable given the mostly negative opinions there, I havn't seen any of the postive reviews he mentions (except Brandon Thomas on Newsarama which I plan to impliment - Have implimented). That fact is that some things are notable for being bad and I think OMD is one of them. The info I have added so far is sourced, and I welcome anybody to give links to any postive reviews here so I can impliment them.  Paul  730 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

And since when was it really necessary to spend an entire paragraph citing in detail the flaws IGN found with it? This isn't done for any normal story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Unmentioned detail[edit]

Given that "all previous comics count" except for married-life details, has there been official word on whether May still knows Peter is Spider-Man? -- (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)do

So far, she seems oblivious to this. Tony Stark and the Avengers do recall Spidey being an Avenger and having unmasked, but thanks to Mephisto, they can't recall who he really was. Harry Osborn, if I recall, had amnesia following his early adventures as the second Goblin, so it appears that he doesn't know who Spidey is either.

Harry doesn't know, although Peter still remembers him being the Goblin and having died. While working with S.H.I.E.L.D at the outbreak of Civil War when Spidey unmasked himself, Norman is most likely back in prison by this point. The newest arc had Spidey working with Wolverine for the Avengers, so it is safe to say that his history with the Avengers has not been erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moderate changes[edit]

I corrected some spelling errors, and broke up several of the long, run-on paragraphs. I also removed a sentence here or there, but didn't do too much of that. I do think that the article sub-sections (especially in the "Reception" section) are far too long and overly detailed. This should be an encyclopedia article, not a review for Newsrama or Wizard. Encyclopedia readers don't need to know every last detail about how everyone at IGN hates this arc or turn of events. It's also not the place for readers to battle out whether OMD is a good or bad thing. The article is supposed to have a NPOV. Jack Brooks (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed more out of the Reception section, and condensed a lot. Jack Brooks (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it was a little long, and have tried to condense it a little (see my reply above at "Bias"). However, while it shouldn't be a review for Newsarama, I think it should be detailed. Simply saying "IGN gave it 3/10" or "Newsarama hated it" isn't very informative, we should try to include detailed criticism (not necessarily negative). I've removed some info personal to the reviewer ("I felt sick in my stomach" etc) and I think what's there is fine now. Also, remember that IGN and Newsarama reviewed it several times by different people. It's not a full paragraph of just one person's opinion. I do agree 100% however that readers' original research ("Quesada should be fired", etc etc) must be kept out of it.  Paul  730 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. I only occasionally edit Wiki articles, but my impulse is almost always to condense, summarize, and correct spelling and grammatical errors -- usually not to fix content errors (though in this article's case, I changed the earlier claim that the story's reception had been "universally negative", which I knew was untrue.) I also favor breaking up long paragraphs into multiple shorter ones, only for ease on the eyes. This is a pop-cultural event that will probably end up ranked with "The Clone Saga" in infamy among Spider-fans, and I do think it says something about Marvel Comics' editorial attitudes toward its fan base (= arrogant), so I agree it merits more than just a little stub. I was a lifelong Spider-Man collector in the past, so I have a sentimental interest in the character. But I got interested in the Wiki article because I know fanboys of all types love to meddle with Wiki articles (whether Spider-Man fanboys, Ron Paul fanboys, or whatever the fanboy's passion happens to be), and thought I would make my contribution to keeping the thing more like an encyclopedia article and less like a blog. (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

High Evolutionary[edit]

What page does he appear on? Thanks. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Early on in part two, I think - when Spider-Man visits the various scientists and mystics of the Marvel Universe. MultipleTom (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stacy[edit]

Any chance of Gwen Stacy appearing now that this happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved - feel like a GA? :) BOZ (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?[edit]

What I can do here, is to read over the Quesada interview, and see if there's anything helpful to add. This will probably not happen for the next few hours as I'm currently busy, but maybe a few hours from now I will find some time. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started by reading over the article. I feel this one needs a bit more context for those who don't follow Spider-Man comics. For example, what is the significance of the line in the lead, that "Marvel has stated that One More Day and "Brand New Day" are canon continuations to the mainstream series"? Is it that people were expecting these stories not to affect the mainstream storyline? Also, it might be a good idea to include at least a paragraph on the history of The Wedding (comics) for a historical context of why the Spider-wedding was controversial in the first place. Just thinking out loud; these may or may not be necessary, but I think they would help. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should always try and avoid discussion of what is and isn't canon/in continuity except when they are specifically not canon (like What Ifs and Elseworlds). Mt work (firefighting?) on canon (fiction) has driven home to me that trying to identify what is an isn't canon is a form of sport for fans when the actual creators may not care that much. Also with comics we are so used to having things brought in or booted out of canon that it is a mug's game trying to identify that it is in canon on every page.
And yes a mention of the Wedding might be appropriate. (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
One more question; should we expand the "Future direction" section at all? BOZ (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If we can find good sources which specifically mention that something is a development or continuation (or even a contradiction) of One More Day then yes, but not having a longer section is probably not a deal-breaker for a GA, although before you got to FA you'd want to make sure you'd covered everything (I don't really know enough about it to spot instantly if there is anything that needs mentioning). (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
Another question; should we get a Development/Conception section going? I'm reading the Quesada interviews (slowly, bit by bit), and we do get a fair representation of his thoughts, so given what I said above, maybe that would be a good idea? BOZ (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Looking it over we can add such a section to the publication history. (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
If anyone is wondering the interviews referred to are a series carried out by Comic Book Resources - this interview links to them all [1]. (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
I removed the mention of canon/mainstream from the lead. I'll continue to pore through the interviews, and add stuff that I think is particularly interesting or relevant without going into too much detail on side issues and such. If, out of that, I can find enough detail to construct a Conception/Development section, I'll do that - or leave it up to others to do. :) BOZ (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that is fine as it is - if people feel we should have a section in there for this then they can add it - the important thing is to have the information in there.
Right I've read through it and done a few tweaks to templates and wording. Nothing major - seems fine, just a couple of points that need clarification:
  • Did Mephisto change the past so the wedding never happened or did he just erase everyone's memories?
  • Also I don't understand this: "The guests all toast to a "Brand New Day", and the story of all the Spider-Man storylines (excluding Spider-Man: Brand New Day) ends (there is no "to be continued" or "to be concluded")."
Other than that it seems good to go. (Emperor (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC))
I removed the confusing line. As to what Mephisto did, well according to the interviews I read he did a bit of both. ;) He erased everyone's memories as far as Peter's secret identity (he showed his face, but no one remembers who they saw), but for the Wedding he "un-made" the event (instead of getting married, P&MJ called it off, and remained together until recently as a loving but unmarried couple). If those items aren't clear, then we should clarify. :) BOZ (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
OK I changed the lead to be a bit clearer (or slightly less specific) and it is less confusing. Seems good to go. (Emperor (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC))
Just a minor quibble... but "crossover" seems wrong here. The linked article is fairly clear that the term deals with a story that use characters that are not normally in the same stories. This is a Spider-Man story that ran through 3 Spider-Man titles. - J Greb (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Given the problems with that article I don't think we need be too concerned. That said the use of crossover in comics is a slightly different beast to the main use there (which would tend to fall under the team-up principle) - the medium is unique in that they often tell stories across different series. If we can get some sources we can either add a section over there or start one at crossover comics or comics crossovers. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

We don't need the "future direction" or "collected editions" sections at all. I have a few mainstream media sources about the story bookmarked from a while back. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we need those sections? Seems fine to me. (Emperor (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
The "Future directions" section is problematic because it focuses on a single two-page spread about the in-continuity changes. As it currently stands it does not deserve its own section. Instead, the ramifications can be dealt with in the publication section, or (if you want to expand upon it) in a retitled "Brand New Day" section. There's no need to give details of collected editions unless there is something notable to say about them (such as a special hardcover or changes made in the reprintes or something), and if there is it's best to do it in prose form. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Onwards to an A?[edit]

What work needs doing to take this to an A?

With all the input we got it was a pretty solid GA and so shouldn't need too much more work to shoot for a higher quality assessment.

The only thing that occurs to me is something BOZ raised: It'd be handy to have some primary references in the plot to indicate what events happened in which issue.

Anything else? (Emperor (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

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

More material[edit]

Anyway to keep things moving on... any more material?

I found a long commentary from Peter Sanderson and extracted some key bits (although fishing through it you might spot something else:

On reading the conclusion of “One More Day” in Amazing Spider-Man #545, I wasn’t as upset about Peter Parker’s deal with Mephisto as I thought I’d be. Spider-Man is the everyman as superhero, and how would you or I react if the only way to save a loved one’s life was to make a bargain with the devil? Could you justify allowing a loved one to die by refusing to make such a deal?

Moreover, I like the grand, operatic romanticism of Mary Jane’s speech to Peter that not even the devil can destroy their love for one another, and that even if he makes them forget what they meant to each other, they will inevitably be reunited. It puts me in mind of the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or stories about reincarnated lovers reunited, from Hawkman to Dark Shadows, which deal with a similar concept.

But still, I remain repulsed by the idea of Spider-Man making a deal with the devil. In his CBR interview Quesada points out that “One More Day” is based on the myth of Faust. Yes, indeed, and the point of Faust and the many variations on it is that making a deal with the devil is always wrong.


Therefore, the truly heroic choice for Spider-Man to make may have been to resign himself to letting Aunt May die rather than provide Mephisto with the opportunity to wreak even greater harm.


So there is one consequence of Peter and Mary Jane’s satanic bargain that is arguably worse than the death of his elderly aunt: it’s like an abortion via black magic. And just how many lives would Spider-Girl have saved if she existed in the “mainstream” Spider-Man’s reality?


Furthermore, to my knowledge, Mephisto has never before demonstrated such power to restructure reality and even resurrect the dead (Harry). But there are plenty of Marvel characters who do, who could have been used to retcon the marriage without morally sullying Peter and Mary Jane’s characters. Over at his online forum, John Byrne has explained how he and writer Howard Mackie would have used the alien Shaper of Worlds to undo the marriage. I find myself leaning towards using the Grandmaster, who has been established as having powers to control time, space, life and death.

The Newsarama link needed adjusting, here it is:

If I find anything else I'll drop it in. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

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

Bad press[edit]

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

Really poor sources, quotations from forums and message boards need to be removed[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spider-Man: One More Day. 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spider-Man: One More Day. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)