Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming

Parker failed to convince Stark to let him stay with the suit, he returns to his high school life, and eventually asks Liz to go to the homecoming dance with him. On the night of the dance, Parker learns that Liz is Toomes' daughter. Deducing Parker's secret identity, Toomes threatens retaliation if he interferes with his plans. During the dance, Parker realizes Toomes is planning to hijack a D.O.D.C. plane transporting weapons from Avengers Tower to the team's new headquarters. He dons his old homemade Spider-Man suit and races to Toomes' lair. He is first ambushed by Schultz, but defeats him with the help of Ned. At the lair, Toomes destroys the building's support beams and leaves Parker to die. Parker escapes the rubble and intercepts the plane, steering it to crash on the beach near Coney Island. He and Toomes continue fighting, ending with Parker saving Toomes' life after some unstable material explodes, and leaving him for the police along with the plane's cargo. After her father's arrest, Liz moves away, and Parker declines an invitation from Stark to join the Avengers full-time. Stark returns Parker's suit, which he puts on at his apartment just as his Aunt May walks in.

In a mid-credits scene, an incarcerated Gargan approaches Toomes in prison. Gargan has heard that Toomes knows Spider-Man's real identity, but Toomes denies this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.88.10 (talk)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

To make a long story short regarding regarding Adamstom.97's revert on the mid-credits scene removal, his response on OrdinaryOtter's talk page mentioned that the Captain America scenes including the post-credit one doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the plot. Additionally, in his response on my talk page, he also mentioned that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to make a similar change from other articles such as The Amazing Spider-Man (film) (which is already a GA) as with what happened here before the change on this article took place.

Given that, does anyone else think the mid-credits scene needs to be kept or removed since it's an important plot development? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

For the record, here is my response to OrdinaryOtter from my talk page:

The test is usually to imagine how we would treat the scene if it was in the body of the film. None of the film's Captain America scenes are included in the plot summary because they are just jokes / easter eggs / world building, not mentioning them doesn't change a reader's understanding of the main events of the film, so that is why the post-credits scene is excluded. The mid-credits scene is different, if it was before the credits there would be no question about including it, I feel. It tells readers that these two characters meet in prison and Gargan suggests some sort of team-up / future return, and it also tells readers about Toomes's mental state / character development when he denies knowing who Spider-Man is. So I do think it is important enough from a plot and character perspective to keep in there.

- adamstom97 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that it does provide our readers with added context about Toomes' characterization and a change of heart, if you will, while also acknowledging Gargan is trying to get back at Spider-Man eventually after he was foiled by him earlier. It seems reasonable to include plot extensions. As for the ASM edit, I have no strong feelings because that was more ambiguous than this one and ultimately did not get paid off (though that is by no means a requirement for determining whether such teases are included). Both of these are good articles but they should be judged accordingly on a case-by-case basis. What is lost by the removing the Steve Rogers joke scenes for our readers? Nothing. But for the Toomes/Gargan scene, a follow-up to earlier events with a major plot continuation, even if it is not paid off right away. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind if the Toomes/Gargan scene stays, but here is my question: Is there not an unspoken agreement between filmmakers and audiences that any scenes after the beginning of the credits are not crucial to the plot? If the filmmakers feel a scene is essential for the audience to see, they will put it before the credits. If they don't feel it's essential, it can go afterwards. Plenty of people leave the theater once the credits roll, and plenty of people close their browser when the credits begin in a streaming movie. Since the plot summaries on WP are meant to be an overview, covering only essential plot points, I still don't really understand why anything after the start of the credits should be mentioned in that section. Again, I'm perfectly happy to let the prison scene stay, but if anyone can answer my question, that would be super awesome. Thanks!

P.S. On a personal note, I've seen Homecoming twice but I never knew the mid-credits scene existed until I started editing this page, and found the scene on YouTube. I don't feel like I missed anything. Gargan hasn't shown up in 9 years, and the fact that Toomes apparently has a little empathy or gratitude towards Spider-Man is nice, but I would hardly consider it an essential part of the story. I know personal anecdotes don't (and shouldn't) dictate how pages should be edited, but I just thought I would share. ☺️ OrdinaryOtter (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You would think so, but not always. The resolution of the central romance in Thor: The Dark World is in the post-credits scene for some reason! - adamstom97 (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That is so weird! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hello! I'm wondering if folks would mind if I create a Casting section and move the content about casting there. Currently, the casting information is contained in chunks in the cast list, and I find this format quite hard to navigate. I recently made this formatting change for The Amazing Spider-Man, and you can also see it in Featured Articles such as The Empire Strikes Back and Batman Returns. I think having a simple cast list plus a section of prose about casting creates an overall cleaner and simpler aesthetic for the page. Please let me know your thoughts. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Most MCU film articles follow the same structure of "Development", "Pre-production", "Filming, and "Post-production", with casting discussed in either one of these sections where applicable or appropriate. Given the rather unconventional timing of certain castings being revealed for many of these films, I'm not sure how much better a dedicated casting section would be. It works for some articles such as Blue Beetle (film) and Production of The Batman (film), but is not necessary just because some FAs do it that way. I'm not sure what casting information you are taking issue with in the Cast list, which includes material relevant to the characters the actors portray and their approach to them. I don't think moving all that information to its own section would necessarily be as efficient given the context. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

My main concern is that when I, and I assume other people, visit a page about a film, one of the things they are often looking for is a cast list. If they go to the Blue Beetle (film) page, they can see the entire list of characters and their portrayers immediately with little effort. However, with a cast list that includes additional information about casting and character development, such as on this page, you have to scroll down a ways to see all the characters. With all the text in the way, I personally find it difficult to quickly locate an individual character. I will often be in the middle of watching a movie on my computer, and I'll pause it to quickly check the cast for the film. I want the information quickly and presented in a simple, intuitive way. I think having separate sections is a way to cater to two types of readers: those who want to quickly peruse the entire cast, and those who want to read more in-depth about the making of the film. When the cast list is combined with the other material, I think it makes it more difficult for both of those types of readers to find what they are looking for. Anyways, that's just my take, and I'm not going to push for a change unless there are others who feel the same. Thanks for the reply. 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We definitely should not be moving character and actor details out of the cast list to create a simple list like at Blue Beetle (film), this is the style for MCU articles that is consistently used. Actual casting information is already included in the production section. If you think there is something in the cast section that would be more appropriate in the production section then we can discuss those bits specifically, but we should not be blanket trying to fit all of this information into the production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a question, which I'm asking not in the spirit of, "Let's keep debating the format of the Homecoming article" but more as a general question about constructing articles that are part of a series. Although I'm sure lots of MCU films have similarities in terms of how they are developed, cast and produced, is it correct to format the pages for each of those films in the same ways just because the others are formatted that way? I keep hearing from other editors that we shouldn't do something on one page just because it's done that way on other similar pages, but instead should treat each page as its own entity with its own needs. And to be clear on this point, in my original post I wasn't suggesting we should change the Homecoming format because certain FA articles do it that way; it was more of, "This isn't just my idea, there are other articles that do it this way, and some of them are high quality". Since the argument was made in both responses to my post that we should follow the formatting of other MCU pages, I'm just hoping for clarity on why it's appropriate to make that argument here and not in other places. Thanks in advance. 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The MCU articles are all part of a single topic and we are getting each Phase promoted to Good Topic status, so it is fine, if not expected, to have a consistent approach and format for each article. We also have our own set of guidelines and decisions for MCU articles which can be found at WP:MCU. So you are right that we generally say not to do something just because it is done at another article (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but in this case there is consensus to have a similar approach for all MCU articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

There's a segment I've been working on, and another editor requested that I bring it up for discussion here. This is the segment:

"Holland attended the Bronx High School of Science in the Bronx for a few days to prepare for the role; other students did not believe he was cast as Spider-Man. Holland felt this would carry over well to the film, where other characters do not suspect Peter of being Spider-Man."

I checked the sources, and the part "other students did not believe he was cast as Spider-Man" is not 100% supported. Holland "did tell a few classmates he would be Spider-Man" (Entertainment Weekly), but he only mentioned the skepticism of one girl (both sources say this). Since the part about students (plural) being skeptical is inaccurate, I took it out, which required also taking out the subsequent part beginning with "Holland felt...".

Here is the (simpler) version I developed:

"To prepare for the role, Holland attended the Bronx High School of Science in the Bronx for a few days using a fake name".

This version was rejected, so now it's up for discussion. Please take a look at the two sources (Variety and EW) and let me know what the best version of this segment would be. Thank you. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are being very difficult about this one small bit of wording and trying to turn it into a major issue at my talk page with some weird insinuations. If you find the wording awkward you are welcome to suggest better wording options, but deleting content that is supported by the sources is not okay. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What were the weird insinuations? Was it using the phrase "let me know if this is acceptable to you"? All I meant was "let me know what you think". If someone reverts my edit, my inclination is to talk with them until we can come to an agreement. Please let me know if that makes sense or not. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It felt like you were insinuating that I control the page and need to give approval for your edits, which is a serious accusation to make and one I do not take lightly. In the future, you should take your concerns to the talk page of the relevant article. Other editors may have thoughts on how this information could be presented differently or if it was fine as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry my phrasing came off that way. It was not my intention to accuse you of anything. I will avoid that phrasing in the future. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey adamstom97, now that we've had a little breather from this conversation, would you be willing to share why you think the current version of the segment in question is supported by the sources? If you aren't interested in spending any more time on this particular segment, I can ask other editors about it instead. I hope it's clear that my desire to continue working on this segment comes from wanting to accurately represent sources in the article, which is very important. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The information you removed is in the source, that is why we have had it in the article all these years. Your explanation did not convince me that this should change. Curious to see if others have thoughts on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

sjones23 and Betty Logan, I would be grateful if you could take a look at this thread and offer your thoughts. I looked through the sources again, and I still don't see any evidence to back up the phrase "other students did not believe he was cast as Spider-Man". In both sources, Holland only mentions one student's skepticism. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording over-states the skepticism; the Variety article also states "I told one person on the last day and it spread like wildfire." I think it's pretty likely that if these kids are geniuses they would have had the gumption to google who had been cast as Spider-Man. It could be re-written to just say he "encountered skepticism" that he had been cast as Spider-Man. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If we take Betty's suggestion, a new version could look like this:

"Holland attended the Bronx High School of Science in the Bronx for a few days to prepare for the role. He encountered skepticism that he had been cast as Spider-Man, which he thought boded well for his role in the film, since other characters do not suspect Peter of being Spider-Man."

Thoughts? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Beware of WP:CANVASSING. I don't think we should be putting more emphasis on this, your phrasing feels inappropriate to me for an encyclopaedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:CANVASSING. I have reached out to editors who I know have a lot of experience on Wikipedia and who work on film articles. If you feel I have violated one of the guidelines on WP:CANVASSING, please point out which one, so I can change my behavior. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Responding per OP's request. So my impression is that not only does the prose overemphasize the skepticism, but that the detail itself is trivial (why is one student's reaction significant enough to merit coverage). However, this is a minor objection relative to the source integrity issue, which can be resolved with a simple rewrite. The text atm is phrased in more words than ideally should be necessary. For example, we could say he found this response promising because he appeared inconspicuous rather than following up with "where other characters do not suspect Peter of being Spider-Man" for more concise wording. DAP 💅 02:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@DAP389: Sorry this is coming so late, but would you be willing to suggest a new version of the segment? I have offered a few versions but they have been rejected, and I am running out of ideas. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)