Talk:Spider-Man/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE - PLEASE DO NOT EDIT

If you wish to comment on anything here, copy it to Talk:Spider-Man and comment there.

Contents 1 Talk 2 Image & Fair Use issues 3 Movie Performance Inclusion 4 Supaidâman 5 Some comments on the censorship of the truth 6 Confirmation, please... 7 aliases 8 The Indian Spider Man 9 Clones as Relatives 10 Can Someone please add more info on the Mainframe Entertainment cartoon version of Spider-Man ? 11 Spider-Man 3: Revenge 12 Villains 13 Image to use 14 Titels missing 15 I wonder who is going to be the villian in Spider-Man 3 16 reverted the following text 17 Let's be sensible, guys 18 added to BJAODN 19 Armor 20 Live-action series 21 Clean-up November 2006 22 Spidey in Popular culture 23 Six Arms 24 Personality? 25 Update to bibliography 26 Update to Powers and Abilities 27 Trivia 28 mascot? 29 Civil War picture 30 Spider-Man & The Black Cat 31 Gwen Stacy Controversy 32 Separate article for Spider-Man's Biography 33 Failed GA 34 Back in Black, S-M3 and the info box 35 Back in Black 36 Semi-protection 37 Since Spiderman is back in his black costume................

Talk

Plenty of room to add to this topic still, if anyone cares to.  :-) --KQ

Image & Fair Use issues

this could still use fleshing out....  :-) no mention of the death of Aunt May or of Gwen Stacy, or even his marriage to Mary Jane, not to mention the whole "clone" business....

Also, I didn't add the image which was probably copyrighted; but thanks for taking it down. I did recently (May 21) e-mail the people at King Features and Marvel Comics asking if there were any images in the public domain. But, since Spider-Man is I think a trademark, I wouldn't expect it.... Awaiting a response

(later) I've gotten a rather prompt response from one of the public relations people, who has assured me that to his knowledge no image of Spider-Man is in the public domain. Therefore no image of Spider-Man may be posted here, as it would conflict with Wikipedia's licensing terms.

Since visual aspects are an important part of a comic book/bande dessinée/manga, could we not, at least, include one image and put it "fair use"? I know some are kind of scared of the fairuse template, but is it so terrible for one picture? Isn't it what it is for? --Liberlogos 12:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Movie Performance Inclusion

Does the stuff about outperforming Star Wars belong here? it's basically pointless braggadocio (sp?) and will cease to be a sensible basis of comparison as soon as everyone forgets what films were released when... --AW

There are two separate Wikipedia entries here - "Spider-Man" and "Amazing Spider-Man." I tried to combine the two of them into "Spider-Man" last week, but someone else objected and re-entered the entry for "Amazing Spider-Man," dedicating it solely to the newspaper strip. So I guess "Spider-Man" should be used for everything else. As it stand right now, I think it's confusing for there to be two separate entries; I still think they should all be grouped under "Spider-Man." And yes, I think the braggadocio for out-performing "Star Wars" is appropriate, at least until next summer's blockbuster movies come out.  :) Modemac

What i'm saying is that an encyclopaedia should make reasonable effort not to be relative to any one point in time, so comparing one film to another that has yet to prove its claim to be remembered for some reasonable time is probably dangerous. It seems to me that if you want to claim the film's figures as impressive it would be more sensible and (in some way I find it hard to describe) more neutral to compare it to, say, a list of the top ten grossing films of all time, or something of the sort. Comparing it simply to one other film that happened to be released in the same year seems dangerously close to advocacy, to me. --AW

The original conflation of the two was my fault; I started the Spider-Man entry at Amazing Spider-Man, thinking of the comic book (not the newstrip), and the bulk of it has since been moved. I don't mind having a separate article on the strip, though the two should link to each other.

So far as the comparison to Star Wars goes--Gone with the Wind was at one time a top-grossing film. Suppose we compare its success with that of a runner-up of its time. Meaningful to more than a handful of film critics and historians? Probably not. --KQ 18:02 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

Supaidâman

There was a Japanese live-action television series featuring a version of Spiderman. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185116/

As well as an old American live-action television series, both supposedly quite bad.

Some comments on the censorship of the truth

Three Times now I had to readd the fact that Stan lee's version of the creation of Spider-Man isn't the ONLY version, or in fact can be blindly taken AS the real version.

http://www.simoncomics.com/jsmag.htm

Steve Ditko BTW had a rather long writing solo career at Charlton Comics as well, so its entirely possible that he alone did the writing for Spider-Man. Lee on the otherhand rarely has his name alone.

IMO, this is too unsubstantiated a claim to include as actual fact in the article. What if my neighbor claimed to have come up with the Captain America idea first. (Nevermind that he's only 35 years old.)  :) Have there been any legal prosecutions and court decisions made? Let it stand as a possibility duely noted here in the discussion page. Cbarbry

The claim is supported by all other parties who were directly involved except for the perpetually self-contradictory Lee. It's hardly "unsubstantiated". -Sean Curtin 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think like many people he fell for Lee's song and dance, all while ignoring his rather... dubious legal history. Mr. Lieber either A) has really bad memory or B) is a very bad liar. The fact that his name is the one that's the most pronounced on the covers on the books just helps the myth that Stan Lee is the sole driving force of Marvel.

You mean aside from the fact that Stan Lee has a rather long and jaded legal history of being sued by Kirby, by Ditko, heck, by some stripper that said he stole Stripperella from. Lee gave at least five Spider-Man origin stories, including one on the Spider-Man movie DVD, to where he claimed he got the idea from watching a fly climb up a wall.

If you're that afraid of people giving Steve Ditko, creator of Blue Beetle II, Captain Atom, The Question, The Creeper, etc etc etc his rightfully deserved credit in Spider-Man's creation, then geez louis.

Alright, its been edited again. Lets hope this time for good. The Last Thing we need is an edit war, especially considering that all the facts are nice and neatly laid out. 66.190.70.147

Good job with the copyedit. Less biased. Cbarbry 04:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's actually my revision you're looking at; 66.190.70.147's version of "all the facts" was... different. Tverbeek 04:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buy the Spider-Man DVD then. In the extras, Lee DID INFACT say that He created the idea from watching a fly climb up a wall. Its not a matter of opinion but fact that Lee has at least two well documented, but very different creation origins for Spider-Man as a character.

But it's your opinion that the two accounts are mutually contradictory. Lee or one of his defenders might argue that he drew upon multiple sources for "the idea", and at different times he's talked about different ones. And in any case, the apparent inconsistencies in his accounts don't necessarily mean he's trying to deceive anyone, or that he's suffering from dementia (although those are also possible explanations). You could also look at it as a storyteller... telling stories. I know that's hard to accept when you're already convinced he's in the wrong, but Wikipedia articles have to give their subjects the benefit of the doubt, not argue for what any of us has concluded. Our responsibility here is just to state the facts, and let the reader decide what to believe. Tverbeek 21:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Spider-Man was based on a Jack Kirby sketch.

I believe that's one of the accounts described in the article. Tverbeek 21:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation, please...

Is there any evidence that the character was based on the Tarantula other than "well, he's a spider-type guy?"

Were his parents ever actually agents of SHIELD? Yes, the cover of the flashback issue of Untold Tales of Spider-Man says so, but they aren't working for SHIELD in the comic (it didn't exist yet). Sean Curtin 00:37, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about the Tarantula thing, but the whole agents of SHIELD thing started back in 1968 - annual #5, "The Parents of Peter Parker." Tinderblast 22:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And has been through a few retcons and enhancements. A number of people have expressed the view that an everyman hero should not be the son of top secret agents. In the "robot parents" storyline that ran on and off in Amazing #365-388, the imposter parents state that they were actually couriers of secret documents (a step towards normality) whom the Red Skull (the second one - explaining that is a minefield in itself) tried to recruit. Instead they informed US intelligence and became double agents even though they weren't trained spies. Both the Avengers' and the Red Skull's databases support this when Spidey checks them. Timrollpickering 17:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

aliases

are spidey and webslinger really aliases. shouldn't it be stuff like Dusk, Hornet, Prodgidy, Ricochet - some other names hes used? (16:34, 4 Mar 2005 GingerM

Sign your posts, huh?

It's "Notable Aliases". I think the ones there are pushing it (especially "Webslinger" and "Wallcrawler," but given that he only used the ID Crisis names for two issues each (plus three of them "cameoed" in one of the ASM issues), I think you'd be pushing it to call them "Notable" SoM 18:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Indian Spider Man

There's a version of Spider Man in India that has a boy from Mumbai dress up as Spider Man. How do we handle him? WhisperToMe 02:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I consider him a non-issue, really. A mention in "Other Spider-Men" should be good enough. Maestro25 02:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Clones as Relatives

Why shouldn't they be counted as relatives? The definition of 'relative' we're using is to be related via blood. Clones are certainly related by blood. Apostrophe 04:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can Someone please add more info on the Mainframe Entertainment cartoon version of Spider-Man ?

Can Someone please add more info on the Mainframe Entertainment television cartoon version of Spider-Man ?

due to reasons not pertaining to this subject I can't add the few info I have right now Spider-Man from Mainframe Entertainment I don't watch the cartoon often enough to be able to provide any reliable information at current time, and I would like to know more about it. I would like also to know how would I be able to link to the specific entry for the cartoon from another article ( Cel-shaded animation ), or if perhaps it would need to have its own article. thanx

Spider-Man 3: Revenge

I would consider Albert Malik/Red Skull as the leading villain in the Spider-Man 3 movie because he killed Peter Parker's parents. I would also consider that some of the possible villains of the third movie would be pawns of Red Skull. --Ed Telerionus 19:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Utterly unlikely. Bringing in a villain heavily associated with another property is a nightmare for the rights. A veteran Nazi (let alone their temporary imposter) is not a natural Spider-Man villain. And, as noted above, everyday folk aren't the children of spies of one form or another. A Spider-Man specific villain would be a much better bet. Timrollpickering 17:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Villains

Spider-Man has one of the best-known rogues galleries (list of enemies) in comics. Among the most infamous supervillains he encounters regularly are:

Some of the entries on this list look suspect. Can I suggest we limit it to the big hitters and mainly Spidey villains. Of the current list here are my thoughts:

• Batwing

Who are they?

• Beetle

Fair enough.

• Beyonder

Supeme cosmic being (or something) but not really a Spidey specific villain, or even a villain at all.

• Big Wheel
• Black Cat (reformed)

Both fair play.

• Black Knight (Nathan Garrett)

When did he take on Spider-Man? I thought he was mainly a Giant Man and Avengers villain.

• Black Tarantula

Is he alive in the present day? (I thought he was just a Spider-Girl villain.)

• Carnage
• Carrion
• Chameleon
• Cyclone
• Demogoblin

All started out in Spidey, tair play.

• Doctor Doom

Okay he's the uber villain for Marvel but he's fought Spidey several times.

• Doctor Octopus
• Doppelganger
• Electro

Fair do.

• Gibbon

Who are they?

• Green Goblin

Would it be better to separate out the four villain goblins?

• Grizzly
• Hammerhead
• Hobgoblin
• Hydro-Man
• Kaine
• Kangaroo I and II
• Kingpin
• Kraven the Hunter
• Lizard

Mainlt obvious ones.

• Magneto

There was a battle in the Acts of Vengeance crossover, but that was mainly devised around heroes fighting other villains. When has he ever fought Spidey alone at any other time?

• Mister Hyde
• Morbius
• Mysterio
• The Owl

Fair do, though he's more commonly associated with Daredevil.

• Plantman

Was he ever actually a Spidey villain?

• Puma
• Rhino
• Rocket Racer (reformed)
• Sandman
• Scorpion
• Shocker
• Shriek
• Silvermane
• Spider-Slayers/Alistair Smythe

Obviously throw in Spencer Smyth as well.

• Spot

Hehe - why not.

• Styx and Stone

Who are they?

• Tarantula I and II
• Taskmaster

Another generic villain - how many times has he actually fought Spidey?

• The Rose

Obvious one...

• The Thousand

Who are they?

• Tinkerer
• Tombstone
• Venom
• Vermin
• Vulture
• Walrus
• White Rabbit

All pretty much okay.

• Will O' Wisp

Is he actually a villain - I thought he and Spidey had teamed up a lot.

• Wizard

Again are they really a Spidey villain? Timrollpickering 18:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Thousand" was a villain who appeared in the first three issue arc of Tangled Web, created by Garth Ennis. It's doubtful he'll ever appear again, and doesn't need to be there. Elijya 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Image to use

Since Steve Ditko is the artist who, with Stan Lee, created Spider-Man, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a Ditko illustration of the character for the "Spider-Man" article? (Of course, it would be even better to delete all the Marvle puff pieces altogether, as advertising doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, even a Wikipedia.)

Makes sense - or else one by John Romita Sr as the artist that everyone seems to copy the most. Timrollpickering 10:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Titels missing

Under Comics that feature Spider-Man and Finished series there were some titles missing but when I checked "edit this page" they are there. I put a br-tag in and now they show up but maybe someone can check the code because I don't se why you should need that tag. 130.241.18.31 09:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I wonder who is going to be the villian in Spider-Man 3

It would be following the comic book if it was Harry. Leave suggestions of who you think it might be.

reverted the following text

Spider-Man's constant talking during battle has made him somewhat notorious among both his super-powered enemies and friends as a person who can be especially aggrivating to deal with.

Spider-Man is widely considered the undisputed master of this form of banter. At one point his trash talking ever left a defeated Doctor Octopus with a complex resulting in a phobia of the hero.

which, in turn, was cancelled in 2006 and replaced by new book Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

None of this is documented or attributed. It's also poorly written, and refers to 2006 in the past-tense. Themindset 22:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's be sensible, guys

I trimmed that "rogue's gallery" (and I still think it's got too much), as I think it should show a definitive list of Spidey's most famous foes, not a who's who of every single bad character he's ever met. I mean, c'mon... the Kangaroo? He showed up twice, and died on the second appearance out of his own stupidity. Spidey hardly knew who he even was, and neither do most of his readers. The Big Wheel? Heck, why not add the Hypno-Hustler while you're at it? The Lobo Brothers? Gibbon and Grizzly? Those guys don't have enough baggage to warrant their own articles, but heavy-hitters like the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus certainly do. And let's try to keep this focused on Spidey's own villains, not a bunch of Hulk or Daredevil villains who inevitably crossed paths with the web-head. I'll grant you Dr. Doom as a recurring foe, but not Stilt-Man.

Let's face it. Spidey's been around 40 years, and he's faced loads of villains. Some are long-time foes, and others were little scions he'd knock around once or twice. This article should reflect that accordingly.

Casting around the various Spider-Man-related articles, I'm noticing a lot of people who think that they can just cut-and-paste from spiderfan.org and it'll do. That just doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. Remember, more information is not always BETTER information. ;)

142.161.203.83 01:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work; I did think that list was rather excessive. There are still a few on there I've never heard of, though. --Dalkaen 02:12, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay how about a separate page for a full list of Spider-Man villains and keep the list here to the main ones. How about the following (currently in random order):

• Hammerhead
• The Chameleon
• Hydro-Man
• The Shocker
• Carrion
• The Jackal
• The Tarantula
• The Lizard
• Electro
• Mysterio
• The Sandman
• Venom
• The Scorpion
• TYhe Vulture
• Kingpin
• Kraven
• Doctor Octopus
• The Hobgoblin
• The Green Goblin
• Carnage
• Demogoblin

Debatable:

• Kaine
• The Punisher

Both hinge on the definition of villain - the Punisher's Asgardian counterpart, Bloodaxe, is considered a villain (Thunderstrike's greatest foe) and has the same methods.

Timrollpickering 09:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

added to BJAODN

Spider-Man eXXXposed was a backstory of sorts that focused on the character Peter Parker and his desperate need to make money. Directed by Jake Billion, the film takes place somewhere between Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. During this time Peter Parker was running low on money, as he refused to take pictures of Spider-Man for the newspaper anymore. Suddenly he caves in and decides that half nude pictures of Spider-Man would surely pull in large amounts of money. The title comes from the following dialogue found in the movie:

• "Perfect Parker! I can see the headlines now! Spider-Man Exposed! With a triple X!" -J. Jonah Jameson

Themindset 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Armor

Ought there be a mention of the silver-and-black armored costume SPider-Man briefly wore?

Live-action series

I could swear there was a low-budget live-action series too, akin to the Hulk and Captain America..

Clean-up November 2006

The article is now 69 KB long. In my view, the 'Other versions of Spider-Man' and 'Other media' sections are way too long and listy. It would better to create new articles for these and focus the main information into prose, in particular Ultimate Spider-Man, the films and so on and so forth. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Spidey in Popular culture

Someone blanked out the whole section in a vandalism attack. It seems that it didn't get restored as it got buried in a ton of other reverts. I agree that seperate articles that focus on other aspects of spidey in popular media is a good idea (like was has been done for Batman). In the meantime, until someone actually creates the pages - I am restoring the entries in "Spider-man in pop culture". After all, it was originally blanked out in a vandalism attack and its removal was not discussed. --Eqdoktor 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Six Arms

How can this article be complete without at least some passing mention of the six armed Parker? at least a link to another article. 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just created Six-Armed Spider-Man to address this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's covered in Spider-Man's powers and equipment under "Further mutations" :P ---HKMarks(T/C) 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personality?

Is personality of Spider-Man (attitude, general outlook and demeanor) covered in the article? I skimmed through it and I didn't see an apparent collection of facts on this subject. I know Spidey isn't known for this, but he does wisecrack. If I'm misjudging what this article needs I can delete this subject. thealexfish 12:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, but there really isn't a place to put it. Tai112 10:06 22 February 2007 (Eastern)

Update to bibliography

I don't have time to do this at the moment, buuut... Spider-Man Unlimited and Marvel Team Up have been cancelled, and replaced by Spider-Man Family. This article, Bibliography of Spider-Man titles and Template:Spider-Man need an update. There's also Spider-Man and Power Pack and Spider-Man: Reign to be added to the bibliography. Good night and good luck. --HKMarks(T/C) 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Update to Powers and Abilities

How much can he press? "Enhanced strength", "Superhuman strength"....blah blah blah.....virtually every hero in Marvel and DC has this. So what?

HOW MUCH CAN HE PRESS? I remember reading once that he could press about 15 tons. The Thing 85, maybe 100. The Hulk 100+. Thor around 95. Why are these specifics left out of all the Powers and Abilities sections???

Because some people claim that is too much information, and doesn't belong on an encyclopedia (weird, I know), or because people think the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe isn't a good enough source, or somehow violates copyright.

Incidently, Spidey used to be able to ROUGHLY lift ten tons, then after his first upgrade, ROUGHLY lift 15 tons, and after that, not sure anymore. I empathize 'roughly' because that's how it was written in the 1984 or whatever dated handbooks, despite other characters being written as 'able to lift/press xx tons under optimal conditions', indicating that Spidey also possesses plot device strength which enables him to lift whatever is required for the storyline (such as him having to support the Daily Bugle building whilst trying to pull a support beam over to replace him). Sera404 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

WP:RFC Why does the trivia section keep getting removed? Information about Spiderman's height, weight, physical description, religious affiliation and even his middle name seem interesting as well as important. --Joecasual 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You can do so by either 10th button from the left on the toolbar or typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Larry laptop 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

mascot?

is he the mascot of marvel comics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.17.116.195 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Pretty much, yeah.  :D Virtually all Marvel Comics pre-90s all had a Spider-Man head on it, if I remember right. Here's an example of a X-Men comic.

http://www.thecomicshop.com.au/site2/jpgs/comic-marvel-x-men137-vg.jpg

See? Spidey's head is there.  :D Sera404 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Civil War picture

Regardless of whether it's a spoiler for a comic released seven months ago, this is an iconic image from the Civil War series and a major event for a character perpetually depicted as being especially guarded about his secret identity. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man & The Black Cat

Can someone tell me what that picture of Spidey, Cat, and Dr. Doom is from? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.10.134 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Spider-man Unlimited 14 story one (created by David Finch and C.B. Cebulski)

Thanks a ton!

Gwen Stacy Controversy

I added a couple of lines referring to the controversial nature of the (fairly recent) revelation that Gwen Stacy had an affair with Norman Osborne that no one knew about. A lot of people (myself included) stop buying Spider-Man stories after that, so I thought it was worth mentioning, but in a way that doesn't detract or distract from the rest of the article. Thanks!--Aylwinatrix 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for Spider-Man's Biography

Spider-Man article is getting too long, so I was thinking if Spider-Man's Fictional Biography be moved to it's own page probably something like Spider-Man's Biography. They already have something like this for Superman in History of Superman, so why can't we have a separate article for spiderman's bio. It would also avoid having to delete some parts of the bio if later it is decided to shorten the articleUDHSS 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

In December, I tagged the article with clean-up. Since then, it has grown, with a lack of reference to prose ratio and a lot of it should be spun off into clean-up. I agree with its assessment of A for comics and B for film: can't be listed as GA. Wiki-newbie 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Back in Black, S-M3 and the info box

Because of "Back in Black" and the new movie, I think (at least temporarily) we should represent this in the info box. I am aware of the hoopla with the Iron Man-spider suit. True, everyone knows the red and blues, and I agree it should be in the infobox. I think a good compromise would be the Spider-Man 3 promos where there's the original AND the black suit. Or if there's some similar image from a comic. --EXV // + @ 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh, Wikipedia does not whim to what's "current". The black suit is a temporary storyline, but Spidey is best known for red and blue. WikiNew 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The black costume is already represented within the article, no need to alter the infobox. --69.136.111.100 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CMC says we use the most representative image. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Back in Black

Anyone remember way back in Amazing #300 ("Venom") when Peter promised Mary Jane he wouldn't wear the black costume anymore because she was traumatized by Venom's appearance in her home? Is that worthy of mention concerning any future information regarding Back in Black? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.10.135 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection

My opinion might be too strong, but since the Spider-Man article is to be getting vandalized lately from anonymous users, should this page be semi-protected? -- Gman124 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Spiderman is back in his black costume................

What about the main image?Phoenix741 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

People know Spidey best as red and blue. WikiNew 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ok that makes sense, but shouldn;t there be some picture of him in his black costume?Phoenix741 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and whilst you're at it could you expand the article to summarise the sub-articles? WikiNew 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)