Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


See Talk:Spider-Man for some background on why there is both a Spider-Man and page and The Amazing Spider-Man page. -mhr 21:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's still ridiculous. Just because separate entries for the same character/comic-book/comic-strip has been set up doesn't mean they should not be combined. It's simply confusing. Turn this into a redirect to Spider-Man. Kaijan 22:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article will remain separate from Spider-Man. Spider-Man has had many comic books devoted to him (Spectacular Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man). Each one of these comic book runs will have its own article as it should, while the character himself, separate from the various series devoted to him, has his own article. Alexander 007 07:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the The_Amazing_Spider-Man article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/The_Amazing_Spider-Man}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography of all amazing spiderman issues

Can someone do a Bibliography of all the issues of the amazing spiderman. From Vol.1,2,and 3. Also the annuals, and specials in the series.

I agree, there are 536 issues to date. I think the bibliography should be classified as begining with the amazing spider-man #1, and include all the 1963 Series Issues. Next, it should note the 1999 series, and thirdly the 2003 series should be outlined and listed as well. ALSO: the picture on the page should be changed to the MOST RECENT "the amazing spider-man" issue, to keep it recent. --Ccolling 23:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

External link slow

The Marvel Database Project linked to from the article is cool but almost unreachable due to slowness... -Philwiki 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to external wikia

Wikipedia policy is never to link to outside wikia as a reference source, and to include only consensus-approved outside wikia under "External links" only. Inline links within the article to Marvel's wiki is inappropriate and against policy. That and DC's wiki are only approved for listing as "External links".

I'd like to also alert fellow editors to the heavy use of POV original-research essaying throughout this article, which is similarly inappropriate. It's such a long article, and involves such a high-profile character, that will take several editors to bring it up to standard in a reasonable period of time. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One More Day

This section contained hugely overwritten and overlong plot detail, disallowed per WPC guidelines and exemplar, and also per Wikipedia MOS since the section topic links to its own, separate article. It also contained uncited "apparently" statements (WP:NOR speculation), and used incorrect cover-dates. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Removed lots of personal critical analysis and WP:NOR essaying. Wiki policy is that we state only verifiable facts, properly cited. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Turn into a disambiguation page

This should a be a disambiguation page. I came here because I thought it was the article on the comic series. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an overview page, not a dab page. (Two entirely different things.) These are not dis-related topics, as they all do concern the Amazing Spider-Man. (Compare to Wesley or Dodds.) And as the link to comic book series is at the top, there should be no issue. - jc37 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why there's a need for an overview page, because the primary connection between these items is that they are all items that have the same title and feature Spider-man. They aren't about the same topic. It's pretty redundant to the separate articles themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"...the primary connection between these items is that they are all items that have the same title and feature Spider-man."
"They aren't about the same topic."
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it would appear that you even note that they are "about the same topic". - jc37 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Amazing Spider-Man (comic) should be move here with a diambiguation for all other uses of the phrase. Just because all the uses for "The Amazing Spider-Man" are related does not mean they need an "overview" page.--Darknus823 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not, but this is more appropriate since at least two sections would disappear. And since there has been a push to use an inappropriate suffix in this, lefts confine the discussion to a unified place which you started on the comic book article's talk page. And stop moving the pages until there is a consensus to change the current situation. - J Greb (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a separate disambiguation page, but in moving the information in this article to be the primary topic, there are now over 500 links to The Amazing Spider-Man, which should link to The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book). Clearly, the comic book should be the primary topic, and the other information would be better served by the article Spider-Man in other media. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


This is an article about the comic-book series, not about the character Spider-Man. The SHB should depict the first issue. That is encyclopedic, historically significant, non-decorative, and justifiable under FUR. Thought and comments from other editors, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree... Start with the beginging instead of the "most recent, significant issue". - J Greb (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
With no comments otherwise after nearly two weeks, I will make the change. Please do not revert without calling for community comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


This should be move to The Amazing Spider-Man with a diambiguation for all other uses of the phrase. The current "The Amazing Spider-Man" page is redundant since all the items on that page have their own separate articles.--Darknus823 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. This should have been place before moving the article from The Amazing Spider-Man (comics book).
  2. As it stands "(comic)" is in no way, shape or for a correct dab suffix.
  3. Based on the set index currently;y at The Amazing Spider-Man, two topics covered there do not have their own articles - The newspaper comic strip and the radio/audio plays. Since the set index is more than a simple dab page, the "(disambiguation)" suffix would be inappropriate as would "(comics)"
In regards to point 1 and 2, I've moved this article back to the last "good" dab suffix it had so the move can be discussed from there. Please allow the discussion to go from there.
In regard to point three, this article should 'remain as "(comic book)". There is no reasonable suffix for the set index article. Further, since there is both "book" and "strip" formats, it is inappropriate to use "(comics)" for an article that focuses on only one of those formats. - J Greb (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a tricky one, there are probably a couple of solutions (other than simply leaving it as it is, of course), although none of them are to move this to "The Amazing Spider-Man (comic)". The Amazing Spider-Man is clunky and isn't a set index (as that covers a specific topic like films, mountains, etc. and that covers TV and films - it is more a bloated disambiguation page) and I feel something needs doing. The options would be:
  • Move this to The Amazing Spider-Man and move the page there to a disambiguation and trim down. As J Greb says this isn't really a good option as some of the spin-offs don't have their own articles.
  • We merge the two together - this would make for a larger page but one we could cope with. The others would go into "Spin-offs" or "In other media" but it strikes me we have a case of apples and oranges as some of those aren't spin-offs from the comic but are things that happen to the named the same way. Which leads me to my preferred solution:
  • A hybrid approach - some things aren't spin-offs from the comic but merely have the same name as it, some are even reaching (like the "film" section - the audio play is unclear and unsourced). I'd suggest we merge in just the spin-offs and create a list at The Amazing Spider-Man (disambiguation) which can include everything of the same name. It would allow us to keep the "in other media" section tighter and less speculative while allowing people to find the specific page they are looking for.
So we either go with that last option or leave it as it is - the main page is messy and loose and it would be an unsatisfactory solution but if the hybrid approach isn't workable then we will have to go with the best of a bad lot.
For a broader discussion on disambiguating (part of which came up from the various moves recently) see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Disambiguation. (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
Actually we may be over complicating this situation - the media may be called something related to "The Amazing Spider-Man" but it would be difficult to claim most of it is specifically spin-offs from The Amazing Spider-Man comic book, they are really spin-offs from Spider-Man and should really be dealt with in Spider-Man in other media. So my solution would be to merge most of The Amazing Spider-Man to Spider-Man in other media and move this to the top slot. We can include anything hat is an actual spin-off in other media and we should create a conventional disambiguation page at The Amazing Spider-Man (disambiguation) listing the other things that happen to share the same name, for example you have Batman: Gotham Knights and Batman: Gotham Knight but they aren't spin-offs - when it comes to merchandising and spin-off licensing it is often a good idea to use one of the available names and as there is already a lot of media named "Spider-Man" a good alternative would be "The Amazing Spider-Man" but there need not be any connection beyond the name and these are best dealt with in the more relevant article, which in this case is: Spider-Man in other media. (Emperor (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
I'd have to go along with Emperor and J Greb overall. One additional complicating factor, though, is that Fictional history of Spider-Man contains very much the same information as The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book). As long as we're working on the article, we might want to just have a "main article" link from The Amazing Spider-Man (comics book) to Fictional history of Spider-Man, rather than having everything appear twice. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the problem with splitting up a big article like Spider-Man is that there could be an increased replication of information. It does look like this could be the case. If we trimmed this article back a bit then moving this to the top slot and merging bits of the article there into this and merging the rest to Spider-Man in other media would help sort the relevant bits into the relevant places. (Emperor (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
A couple thoughts:
When I split this from the rather large The Amazing Spider-Man, this seemed to be the obvious (and easiest) split. There was more information on the comic book; it was causing the page to be less than easily navigated; etc.
I wouldn't disagree that The Amazing Spider-Man does need cleanup.
A GDFL note: In doing the split, I moved the page to The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book), and did the split "in reverse", back to The Amazing Spider-Man. I did this because (mostly): The comic book section was larger, and likely the result of the "more edits". In addition, it allowed for merging to the pre-existing dab page. (See here.)
One thing that I think I'd oppose is just merging to Spider-Man in other media. To be clear, this concerns the usage of the name The Amazing Spider-Man, not: "anything to do with Spider-Man". For one thing, I don't wish to give short shrift to the comic strip or the TV series. And honestly, I think that there is enough listed to support its being its own page.
This also follows the naming conventions of quite a few other pages, including Superman (comic book) and Batman (comic book). (See also WP:NCC.)
And really, while this information may be derived from the character "Spider-Man", they aren't derived from the comic book, merely its name (which derives from a merging of the previous name: Amazing Fantasy; and the character's name: Spider-Man). I doubt that any in this discussion would dispute this.
So to summarise:
  • The Amazing Spider-Man is a name which has been used in several media for creative works related to Spider-Man.
  • I think that it's such a "strong" (commonly known) name, which has had many usages, that it justifies having its own page.
  • The comic book information may have comprised the (currently) longest section, but (at least) the comic strip name may be "commonly known" enough for this to justify not having the comic book default to the non-parenthetical form, but rather to fall under the dab guidelines at WP:NCC. Which means that the article/list/dabpage/setindex/overview - (or whatever we're calling them these days : ) - should be the non-parenthetical page. (And honestly, would seem to be more intuitive and an ease to navigation.)
As such, I oppose a move/merge, and suggest that efforts instead be directed towards cleaning up Amazing Spider-Man. (Since that seems to be a concern.)
As always, further thoughts are most welcome. - jc37 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we might be entering into a realm of confusion here.
I agree with jc37 that The Amazing Spider-Man be either its own article or, at the very, very least, a disambig page. My own thinking tends toward the former, i.e., the status quo.
The page I think is redundant is The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book).
OK. Let's carry on. What do we do about the duplicative material that's in both Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book)? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
From that perspective, we need merely to follow WP:Summary style.
If we presume that Spider-Man is the main article concerning the character (and presumably publication of the character?), then the "bulk" of information at Spider-Man which applies to The Amazing Spider-Man can be merged here, while placing a concise summary and using Template:Main to link here.
This is, of course, presuming that I understood your question. If not, please feel free to clarify : ) - jc37 09:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not following, though I get the sense we're on the same page.
That said, I think I'll sit this one out. There's a brouhaha brewing at Vertigo (DC Comics), and for whatever repetition or redundancies that might exist in the Spider-Man articles, they're by and large solid, encyclopedic entries. Now Vertigo (DC Comics)? That needs help and attention.
It's good working with you, JC. Stop over the other place and weigh in if you can. Cheers, bud -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a separate disambiguation page, but in moving information to an article titled The Amazing Spider-Man, there are now over 500 links which point there, that should clearly link to The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book). I think that the comic book should be the primary topic, and the other information would be better served by the article Spider-Man in other media. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do feel that this should be titled The Amazing Spider-Man per WP:Common name. Nobody's going to type in (comic book). Either that or change the disambiguation page to The Amazing Spider-Man instead of The Amazing Spider-Man (disambiguation). One or the other. Jhenderson 777 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jhenderson777 re WP:Common name. The comic book The Amazing Spider-Man is the first and most pronounced use of the title/phrase; everything else comes from that. The existing "(comic book)" links will redirect. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press re-release

There's no mention about the associated press' Smart Source re-releases of the early issues of the Amazing series in 2006 called "Spider-Man Collectible Series". Sarujo (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Amazing Spider-Man 139.jpg

The image File:Amazing Spider-Man 139.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The reboot

"Marvel began The Amazing Spider-Man anew with vol. 2, #1 (January 1999)."...

what does it mean? can anyone explain that to me?

did they restart the whole thing? or only the counting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book)The Amazing Spider-Man — The title The Amazing Spider-Man already redirects here. If this comic book series is considered the primary topic, then we should move it to that title. If it is not considered the primary topic, then we should move The Amazing Spider-Man (disambiguation) to The Amazing Spider-Man instead, and the comic book series can be listed among the other topics (including the 2012 film). --Erik (talk | contribs) 21:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I personally find it very likely that the 2012 film will be popular for the long term (as each Spider-Man film has been more trafficked than any of the topics in this set). I think the best approach is to make The Amazing Spider-Man a disambiguation page and to only consider the 2012 film as the primary topic some time after the film's release. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have already put up a comment saying one or the other. But I do prefer this article being called The Amazing Spider-Man more than the disambiguation and having a hatnote to the disambiguation page on the top. But I might just change my mind on that because both options sound promising. Jhenderson 777 21:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What is your definition of a primary topic? In the past month, the comic book series article has averaged 600 visits a day. In comparison the 2002 film Spider-Man averages 3,000 to 4,000 visits a day. Spider-Man 2 (2004) averages about 2,000 visits a day. Spider-Man 3 (2007) averages about 3,000 visits a day. The upcoming film at The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) is going to be at least that many visits after it comes out (probably more during its theatrical run). A primary topic is one that readers are far more likely to look for than the other topics. Exceptions to that would be "recentism and educational value". Is the comic book series of educational value? Does recentism apply to the 2012 film when it is likely going to have just as many visits (or more) than the comic book series years after its release? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the upcoming film will have more interest due to recentism, but that does not make it the primary topic. The title The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) is more in line with WP:NCF. If necessary, the hatnote on the comic book article can be modified, to include a direct link to the 2012 film. But the fact remains that ANY article with "The Amazing Spider-Man" in the title, is based on the comic book. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing to making the 2012 film the primary topic. I'm saying that its presence in this set of topics makes it just as likely to be searched for as the comic book series. That's why I was advocating a disambiguation page at The Amazing Spider-Man; all the topics are listed there, with none of them being primary. In addition, being "based on" is not a primary topic criteria. It would be more a matter of educational value, if the source material was still important even with multiple film adaptations of it. If the source material is conventional and the film adaptation is conventional, then it's a matter of what readers are looking for the most, if any particular topic at all. A similar discussion took place at Talk:Fight Club (film)#Requested move (with the novel being at Fight Club), and it led to that article title becoming a disambiguation page, with the novel article now at Fight Club (novel). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia by definition. "The Amazing Spider-Man" should go to an explanation of what is being searched for, and its history, etc. And the history of that term, is the comic book that has been published for over 40 years. Furthermore, all of the links currently at "What Links Here" for The Amazing Spider-Man are referring to the comic book, and there are 36 variations of that term, which all redirect to the comic book as well. Yes, the reader should also be made aware of the cultural reference to it, with a hatnote at the top of the article. But as seen above, this is not the first time that a move has been proposed. The comic book The Amazing Spider-Man is the first and most pronounced use of that title/phrase, and everything else should be disambiguated from that. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so are you arguing that the comic book series has educational value? With the 2012 film to get just as much traffic as the comic book series for the long term, there is not going to be a primary topic based on what readers are most likely to search for. For what it's worth, links can be updated, and the previous request to move was minimal and does not factor in the 2012 film article that is a disruptor here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused by all the current naming structure, which I guess is one reason we're all here discussing this — and I'm actually not sure if I'm for against the move. I'm for whatever follows this logic: My view is that a search for "The Amazing Spider-Man" should take you to the article for the comic book, which is the original and primary use of the phrase. I understand the new movie will be titled "The Amazing Spider-Man." However, the movie Iron Man is popular, as is the song "Iron Man," yet we we don't have "Iron Man (film)", "Iron Man (song)" and "Iron Man (comics character)". When you search on "Iron Man," you get taken to the comics character's article, which is the original and primary use of that phrase. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Amazing Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man" are two different terms, though. A better comparison is The Dark Knight, which is a disambiguation page that mentions Batman's common nickname and also links to the recent Batman film. It is a matter of determining if the comic book series is the primary topic per the guidelines. Readers are going to be as likely to look for the 2012 film The Amazing Spider-Man as they are going to be looking for the comic book series The Amazing Spider-Man. The remaining criteria to make the comic book series the primary topic is to determine if there is so-called educational value that roots it. (The guidelines added the "educational value" passage last month, I believe.) If not, then there is no primary topic, and we should have a disambiguation page at The Amazing Spider-Man. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Erik, it appears that you are the person who initially proposed this move, because as you said, "The title The Amazing Spider-Man already redirects here". But when I pointed that out, in order to agree with the move, you then argued that it wasn't a primary topic criteria! Now that others such as Jhenderson777 and Tenebrae seem to prefer this article being called The Amazing Spider-Man more than the disambiguation page, you now seem to be against it, because of the likely popularity for the 2012 film. With all due respect, there is no way of knowing how the film will affect "The Amazing Spider-Man" as a search term on Wikipedia, and even then it can easily be included in the hatnote of this article, in addition to disambiguation page link. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's funny that a nickname like Dark Knight is used as as disambiguation but The Incredible Hulk is used as a redirection. But I see that Dark Knight can refer more characters than just a little bit so I can see why. Jhenderson 777 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I mentioned both options and later decided a disambiguation page would work best because readers are as likely to look for the 2012 film as they are to look for the comic book series. That means there is no primary topic. And yes, there is a way to know how the film will affect this set of topics. That's why I outlined the daily visits for the three past Spider-Man films. We can look at other superhero films, too, but I recall off the top of my head that they frequently get thousands of visitors every day. I already considered including the 2012 film in the hatnote if the comic book series is determined to be the primary topic, but in the meantime, I am arguing that it is not. Can you please explain why you think the comic book series is the primary topic per the guidelines? That's why I asked if you think it has educational value. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I can see Erik's concern. He done this right when the film is revealed that it is going be titled this. When we said we preferred this article should use the title up on the section above, the film wasn't revealed to named this until after. It's sort of ironic. :D Jhenderson 777 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, when the 2012 film's official title was announced, I investigated what other topics used "The Amazing Spider-Man". If the film did not have this title, I probably would be fine with treating the comic book series as the primary topic as more likely to be searched for than the other topics. It looks like before the announcement, the comic book series article had hundreds of visitors per day, where the disambiguation page (with all the other topics) did not even have a hundred visitors per day. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Popularity is not the criterion, however; popularity is fleeting. The primary common usage carries the title — and for nearly 50 years, The Amazing Spider-Man has been the title of one of the world's best-known, top-selling comic books. We should be wary of succumbing to recentism in light of these decades of primary use. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Popularity is related. The guidelines say, "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term." The comic book series article does not qualify as the primary topic with this criteria. The guidelines go on to say, "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." My take on this, based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, is that if the existing primary topic is educationally valuable, then recentism should not dislodge it. So we should apply that here. If the comic book series is educationally valuable, then the new film should not dislodge it. One example from the talk page is Nirvana vs. Nirvana (band). Is this pairing at all similar? The topic, judging from the article, does not seem to provide knowledge useful in academia. The "educational value" argument could be applied to the major superheroes as cultural icons and such, but this is a series that seems more famed in fandom than in any form of education. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we agree more than not, from the sound of what you say. Re: educational value, there are certainly scores of university curricula that treat American pop culture as a subject of serious study, and comics are certainly as viable a topic of academic scrutiny as film or television — remember, it wasn't until about 1949 that the mainstream began to regard "moving pictures" and "the flickers" as the art of cinema. All that said, I don't really feel strongly either way on whether The Amazing Spider-Man comic book is primary. I think it makes sense, and provides better navigation, but I can certainly go along if we make that phrase go to a disambig page instead. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the upcoming film will increase the popularity of "The Amazing Spider-Man" as a search term on Wikipedia. But I do believe that the educational value of the comic book article outweighs any other use of that term as a primary topic. Where do you think that they came up with the title The Amazing Spider-Man for the movie in the first place? If there is a consensus to make The Amazing Spider-Man a disambiguation page as a compromise, please keep in mind that it currently links to the comic book for a reason. There are hundreds of articles that link to that term, and they all correspond to the comic book. I understand that links can be fixed, but I personally see no sense in redirecting all those links to a disambiguation page, when right now they already point to the primary topic. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That's all I needed to hear, that the comic book series has educational value. I just disagree with that assessment. It is certainly the originating term, but I do not think the educational value is there to make it immune as a primary topic. For example, I also requested moves of Avatar (Hinduism) and The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film) because I think each of these topics have educational value. I'm fine with either outcome but just prefer the disambiguation page more because I think it is more in line with the guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wherever the The Amazing Spider-Man actually belongs. One thing is certain it should be a actual title not a redirection. That is mostly what we should be worrying about first. Jhenderson 777 19:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Move as suggested. The comic book article should be the main The Amazing Spider-Man article with the current link at the top to the disambiguation page in place. Spidey104 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Move. Comic book article should be "The Amazing Spider-Man" without "(comic book)" at the end. (For all of the reasons already given above.) Kurt Parker (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Move. As above. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll set up automatic archiving. Shearonink (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Should go 'live' within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)