Talk:Doctor Doom

African American Studies

I really doubt that Doom received a degree in African American Studies from Stanford. I think this is a joke for three reasons: 1. The incongruent nature of the statement in the context of the article and Doom's character, 2. The fact that the book cited was supposedly written by Chris Byrne in 1972, a time when Byrne was only writing much smaller name comics, and 3. This is likely a joke on Byrne's tendency to write out of character. I'll delete the statement and the citation for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.67.174 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Slanted Language

I believe this is slanted language: "His ruling of the small nation of Latveria provides him with diplomatic immunity, an ingenious plot device never used before in comics". I don't think it's the place of Wikipedia to judge whether a plot device is ingenious or not. 66.189.36.149 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Person

Why does Doom refer to himself in third person? Is that just because he is an uber narcasist?

He is royalty and talking in a rather oldish and dramatic style. People in position like that tended to do that sort of thing. -Oneiros

Darth Vader

It seems likely that Doom was a prototype for Darth Vader. Part of the character's hook is wondering just what he has hidden under that mask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.216.25 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 February 2003 (UTC)

George Lucas has indeed acknowledged the influence of Doom in creating Vader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 January 2004 (UTC)

That certainly seems evident, but it really needs a citation -- preferably a quote from one of the countless articles, interviews and books in which Lucas is quoted. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! - Tenebrae 05:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

'Doctor'?

If Doctor Doom was expelled from college, where did he get his degree? -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He doesn't have one. But when the second-strongest sorcerer on Earth, who also happens to command legions of robotic minions and is wearing atomic-powered armour, tells you his name is Doctor Doom, you call him doctor. :) Bryan 05:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Most recent appearances skip the "Doctor" part (for instance, "Unthinkable" by Mark Waid). Everyone calls him, or refers to him as "Doom", except for Reed Richards, who calls him "Victor" (they knew each other in college). He was called "Doctor Doom" in the 60s because Stan Lee loved alliterations (Peter Parker, Reed Richards, Susan Storm, Matt Murdock, Bruce Banner), not because it made any sense. :) Dehumanizer 22:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other "adaptations" of Doctor Doom? --Feitclub 03:40, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I highly recommend the MF Doom albums mentioned in the article. Doom is an amazing rapper, and he has produced several incredible albums in the last few years.

Who is to say that Doom did not confer upon himself a doctorate from a Latverian university? - User:Sh@z@m

What I remember reading (back in the early 1960's) is that Dr. Doom and Reed Richards worked on the same floor in the university and an explosion from an forbidden experiment had injured him. The dean of the university banned him for it. People with Dr. degrees can still be banned from working there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.114.12 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Characteristics

RE: his use of scientific and magical genius for evil, his eerie name, and his penchant for speaking in a melodramatic manner — have often been copied and parodied.

Actually, this stuff was around and being copied and parodied for years and years before Doom. Fu Manchu, Ming the Merciless, Sherlock Holmes' nemesis Moriarty ... this list goes on. As do the villains! :-) - Tenebrae 05:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When has the Punisher ever encountered the Doomster?

Here is a question - what is Doctor Doom's current status ? is he alive , is he dead , is he trapped in anothe dimension ? becouse in House of M he was alive and well ... but then again , in house of m the dead gwen stacy , and other guys were resurrected...... so.......... if anyone can help me ,thank you :)

AFAIK he's in hell atm XSpaceyx 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time he was seen in the normal Fantastic Four ongoing, it ended with him being in Hell for failing to live up to his deal with some demons, or slighting them, or failing them or something. However, I heard that Doom (the real thing, not yet another Doom-bot) recently killed off Squirrel Girl, but from reading the Wiki article I obviously wasn't listening too closely when my friend told me that, or he was wrong. Satan's Rubber Duck 11:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this article isn't so updated.. 193.13.57.88 12:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, having the article updated to the current issue is going to spoil anyone looking for a little bit of background info on a character they may have never met before. Satan's Rubber Duck 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Power cosmic?

Anyone know how many times he has actually aquired the power cosmic or any other cosmic power for that matter? So far I can only remember twice, Galactus and Beyonder.

He's also taken it from the Silver Surfer. Dr Archeville 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He's stolen power from Uatu the Watcher before, and IIRC, also Terrax at least once. --Metaphysician

Doom is currently in hell. Even so he has allied Latveria with the nation of Wakanda in a battle against the coming globalization imposed by the Super Human Registration Act in the United States. Wakanda is ruled by The Black Panther and his new Wife Storm AKA Ororo Monroe. cyph mon may5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.241.207 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I seem to recall hearing Dr Doom is from Latvia. Am I just nuts?

Latveria, a fictionalized Eastern European nation based on, among others, Latvia. --Rocketgoat 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

'Machines of Doom' Article?

Would it be in Wikipedia's purview to make a page listing & describing all the 100+ gadgets Dr. Doom has used in his decades of comic life? There are pages for Captain America's shield and Thor's hamme Mjolnir (and I'm working on one for the Armors of Iron Man), so it would seem to me that there is some precedent for such an aticle. Dr Archeville 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I say go for it.

Runaways

Dr. Doom also figures prominently in the storyline of the comic Runaways, starting in issue 4. Someone want to add this somewhere? I don't think I know enough to be qualified to do it. There are some details on the Ultron page. aubrey 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dooms from other Fox Comics and DC Comics

An anon user moved this to trivia which I subsequently restored to the top of the article. Since the Fox and DC Comics' Dr. Dooms are extremely unlikely to develop their own pages on wikipedia (particularly the DC Comics' Dr. Doom) it seems appropriate that these characters be mentioned up front in the article for anyone who may be searching for whatever information wikipedia may have on the other Dr. Dooms. Burying it under a trivia section makes them almost not worth mentioning in the article at all, and anyone looking for information on these Dr. Dooms from rival comic publishers will undoubtedly look for them here. The original paragraph including the info on Fox Comics Dr. Doom and Marvel's Dr. Droom have been there for a long time, but I recently added the information on DC Comics' Dr. Doom after digging up my old copy of Detective Comics #158. My conjecture is that DC kept their Dr. Doom obscure so as to avoid a copyright fight with Marvel. What do others think about where this information about other Dr. Dooms should be placed?-- Cardinal Newman  05:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Dr. Doom exist before Civil War?

The publication history of the character needs to be filled out, and also a mention of doombots would be nice. I don't know enough about Dr. Doom to be much help with this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hunh? In his info box it says his first appearance was July 1962, well before the Civil War story arc. --Dr Archeville 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mangaverse

I think I remember he was a black woman in the mangaverse, the sister to the black panther or something like that, but I can't remember well. Anyone willing to fill? --SidiLemine 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alias

Doctor Doom once used the third Invincible Man as an alias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.11.242 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite this? When and where did he use this alias? --GentlemanGhost 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King references

Since Eddie Dean came from 1987, how would he know about Harry Potter? speaking of which, do we need two references to Dark Tower? they should be merged, or the inferior one removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.11.242 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2007

Thanks for catching these. I removed one of the Dark Tower references (it was in the wrong section anyway). Also the bit about Harry Potter and lightsabers has nothing to do with Dr. Doom, so I excised it from the article altogether. --GentlemanGhost 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Magical Power Level

The article states that Doom is next in line for the title of Sorcerer Supreme. However, other than the Unthinkable story line in which his magical powers were supplemented, Doom has never shown magical abilities that would put him ahead of the likes of Baron Mordo, Morgan Le Fey, Hellstorm, or Doctor Druid (not an exhaustive list). And even in the Unthinkable story line it is made clear that without the demon's granting him additional power that his abilities were quite limited.

The closest that I'm aware of Doom being listed as number two are in the Doctor Doom/Strange graphic novel where Doom came in second in a magical contest. However, Doom and Strange were the only notables entered in that contest.Gethe 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This assertion does indeed come from the Doctor Doom/Strange graphic novel, entitled "Triumph and Torment" where Doom, Strange, and many other magicians in the Marvel Universe competed for the title of sorcerer supreme at the behest of the Vishanti. Doom freely admits before the contest takes place that he is not adept at some of the others present in the ways of magic, but is allowed to participate anyway. The result of the contest can roughly be interpreted as putting Doom in second place, and it is for this reason it is often said he is next in line as Sorcerer Supreme. In the events that followed in the same story, however, Dr. Strange apparently taught Doom a great deal about magical combat, enough for them to survive in Mephisto's hellish dimension. For all these reasons it is reasonable to assume that if Dr. Strange were dispatched Dr. Doom could very well be next in line for his title, or at least in the running.

Don't violate policy

Don't delete comments you don't agree with. It's against wikipedia policy. Thanks. 72.144.71.193 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Face?

I'm sure they have at some point, but has his face ever been clearly shown in 616 continuity? If so, that might be a good panel/page to track down and put on the article, his supposed disfigurement is a fairly large part of his character.

No, it is tradition that it has not been clearly shown.

Hey, I'm kinda sure his face was visible in Secret Wars (though it had been cured, or summfin'). Marvelrulez 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his face has been shown unscarred (such as in Secret Wars, yes). These events were later undone by the Beyonder, including his unscarring. Doom's pride will never allow his scarred face to be shown, and as someone else said above, it has been a long-standing tradition to not reveal it. The closest that I have ever come to see his scarred face being revealed was in Books of Doom, but it was revealed in that same page that it was a doombot. -- Trakx 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Aww, I wanted to see his freaky face. Heh, like when Peter Griffin went to see the Phantom of the Opera.

Sideshow toys, makers of collectable figures, had made a bust of DD, with both removeable mask(!) and nose(!!) check it out here [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.202.130 (talk) 18:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Minute Waltz?

The Punisher met Doctor Doom in one of his really dorktastic issues of his own series. If that made sense.

Also, the Punisher killed Doom on panel in 'Punisher Kills The Marvel Universe'.

And the current bit about Doom killing the orchestra that failed to play the Minute Waltz in a minute...even it's ever found what issue this happened in, should this really be part of the article anyway? The 'real' Doom has an appreciation for the arts and would know exactly how long the Minute Waltz would last.

Lots42 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While an interesting bit of trivia, to the casual reader looking up information on Doom it would paint the wrong picture. I'm not sure of what comic or issue this happened in, but it isn't a defining moment, but merely a passing whim of an idea the writer had that he thought would show Doom to not only be classy, but dangerous. -- Trakx 11:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Immunity?

While it's acknowledged that Doom has diplomatic immunity when he travels abroad, is it really something that should be listed under 'abilties'? Should something like that really be considered a 'super power'? Lord Shaz 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be at least noted (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Numbers of issues

I have added all the refferences needed to the information I gave (specially sections "Doom´s honor", "Doom´s love interests", "Doom´s villains that he has defeated"). I supposse that now the problem of refferences will finish. If it stills, please, tell me what´s the number that I need to add.

Is there a reason that his role in the heroes reborn universe was not used?

If I remeber correctly Doom played a major role in the heroes reborn universe. He was the reason that the heroes could beat Galactacus because he would see their mistakes in each of their attempts to stop him, then he used those seperate ideas to finally stop The big G. The story is found in issue 12 of each series in the heroes reborn universe. Thank you so much for listening. GL135

Why not enter the relevant information yourself? I have not actually read any Doom HR universe appereances. Lots42 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mephisto?

???

Mephisto did not cause the accident that scarred Doom and made him hate Reed. Doom's own arrogance did this.

Lots42 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This had been the long standing story, yes, but it was further explained in Books of Doom by Ed Brubaker. In short, the famous experiment was not a complete disaster: Doom did astral travel to Mephisto's Realm. While there, Mephisto defeated Doom from saving his mother, but told him that once a year he may try again. In Mephisto's Realm, Doom was then scarred by Mephisto, and in the real world Doom's machine exploded. In the end, and not to contradict myself, but it may have been one or the other or both that caused the scar. - Trakx 11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

This is a pain to read. I'm a little drowsy I'll grant, but some of these sentences in the article make my head hurt.

Agreed. Example- "But he had his revenge to Magneto's cruel acts, because when the rebellion against him started, Doom helped him aimless, and quickly escaped, disappearing (perhaps to rescue his mother), leaving King Magnus alone to face a shamefully defeat by the Scarlett Witch's hands." I'm going to attempt some cleanup. --Citizen Sykes 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ways to shorten the article

This article is too long and needs to be shortened. I propose creating an article to move his 'Other versions' section to, like Captain America, Spider-Man, Wolverine, etc. have. Anyone disagree? Anyone with other ideas on how to shorten the article? -Freak104 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I created the Alternate versions of Doctor Doom page to help shorten this article, but it's still too long. Freak104 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole section on Rise of the Silver Surfer is out of line. It should mention his appearance in the film and brief synopsis, not a play by play of every scene he's in in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.187.19 (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the mention of Doom as an iconic megavillain is a little aside from the point and the definition of megavillain given is even more unclear to the point of begging disputation. The examples are simply evil geniuses, not villains of vast proportions that seek to dominate the world or greater regions. Nor are all of these listed "sympathetic villains" nor anti-heroes nor protagonal sadists. A true megavillain has been described before as simply a fictive villain who is portrayed as capable of destroying or conquering the world or a greater region and is interested in such a thing defacto and normally. There is nothing particularly romantic about this concept as a loosely given variable. However we should not forget the term "romantic villain" and "evil genius". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.165.100 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rise of the Silver Surfer

One paragraph says "He knocks out all the guards guarding the board and kills General Hager". But then the next paragraph says ".... ...he attaches himself to the surfboard and goes on a rampage throughout the Earth,disintegrating and killing General Hager in the process. ".

This is confusing, as it seems like General Hager died twice. Can someone who saw the movie clear this up? 68.199.241.212 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doom1994.png

Image:Doom1994.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doom2006.png

Image:Doom2006.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Where have the references gone?

The article cites a few references (like Wizard magazine putting him as number 4 villian etc.) but under the references entry there is only a link to an extremly crappy made fansite? Aetherfukz 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doctor-doom-mf.jpg

Image:Doctor-doom-mf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Doom's honor

Shouldn't that section have some references as opposed to "in [story arc/comic/etc.], Doom did.." ? I'd add them myself, but I haven't kept up with Marvel comics in a long, long time. Th 2005 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. It was original research, personal intepretation of the comics rather than analysis by a reliable source.  Paul  730 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs and I dumped this personality/honour stuff ages ago, because we know different writers interpret Doom differently over the years. As the publication history shows, Mark Waid certainly didn't think of Doom as honourable. Alientraveller (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I usually don't like to fail an article right off the bat. However, after reading this article, it obviously has some problems with keeping out-of-universe perspective. The lead, "Fictional character biography" and "Powers and abilities" sections all need rewriting to keep it "out of universe". WP:WAF states clearly: "The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective." (emphasis not mine)

There are major edits that need to be done, and I think it would be best to rewrite the aforementioned sections to avoid referring to the character as if he was real. Then come back and re-nominate.

I know there are several comic book characters that are FAs (Batman and Captain Marvel are two, I believe), and it's always a good idea to look at other articles that have already succeeded.

If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page. I wish you the best of luck in improving this article, and I hope I see this article nominated again sometime (after much improvement). Noble Story (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Doom's Biography

I still think we should have a page for his biography like Spider-Man and Wolverine have their own biography page. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is his bio? Every comic book character on this site has a bio except one of the most prolific. It seems in an effort to make the page more 'encyclopedic' the editors have gradually shat upon the article. 69.3.159.45 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There used to be one, but I dunno what happened to it. I could patch a few things to it on Word or something, seeing as I'm reading the Chronopack now.. issues from 1961 to recent materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.171.105 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

worst doom image ever!

This picture of Doctor Doom really suck, post a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.156.120 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Doom 2009

Doom 2099 was not created by Robert Kirkman, but John Francis Moore. The link points to an article about a much later 2099 project named after the original. 68.9.104.156 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

can you provide some citation for that? If so, please change it, adding in the citation with your edit. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

revisions

the Cultural Impact section really reads as a critical reception comment. I think it should be merged into the publication history, which describes some of the creative teams and their efforts and intents. If we show those, it makes sense to show the results of the same in the same place. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous quotes?

I like this article, but I would like it even better if it highlighted some of Doc's most famous bombastic quotes… "Fools! You have sealed your fate, etc." (not an actual quote, just what my memory tells me he sounded like.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't do quote lists here, for a few good reasons: We'd need a WP:RS to support that each and every statement was truly famous. We couldn't use it as 'just memorable to that writer', but we'd need actual fame. famous peoples' favorite XYZs aren't usually notable, or articles on colors would be ridiculously stupid and long lists. We also can't because there would be a lot of edit warring and fighting about which quotes go in, what the threshold for determining 'famous' is, and whether one source's assertion rises to the level of another quote's, in effect getting arguments about which editors favorite quote is more famous based on different citations. We would get more and more quotes, often tagged as citation needed, to avoid being immediately removed, and it would be a wedge for including other forms of trivial information. If a character's way of speaking in general is unusual, like Thor, for example, then finding sources about that would probably be more notable, because we could talk about how the creative team portrays the character. Doom, however, is pretty much just about his own hubris and arrogance, which are fairly typical of comic book villians. ThuranX (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That kind of stuff is really suited for Wikiquote, though, not here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Powers

Removed the addition to his powers related to blocking telepaths and realizing others were arriving or there without seeing them. This is merely an extension of his technology, mystical training and willpower and nothing special that we haven't witnessed before. Also, it's Osborn, not Osborne. 86.32.134.96 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mental power

I included Doom in the category Characters who have mental powers because he has the mental power that allows him to transfer his mind to another being.201.29.146.156 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No. He may have a magical spell that let him do that for a given story, but it's not an inherent power; otherwise, we'd see him using it much more often. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IP edits regarding his mental powers.

An IP has been trying to add Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers to the article. He has insisted, on my talk page, that I need to disprove his assertion, otherwise, he'll continue to edit war. This power is in no way supported by the article, nor can he provide citations, beyond 'that issue i remember from Brazil long ago'. I have asked repeatedly for citations, issue number, comic book series in which it occurs, anything .he's provided nothing. I will accept the category if we can get secondary sources on this, but I haven't found any yet. I've requested page protection, as well. This is getting absurd. A half-remembered comic book memory is not sufficient grounds for adding to the article. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the villain behind these lies wants to show something. Forgive my delay. Everybody can see here that I've been editing the true. The Official biography of Dr. Doom, section Powers, says He can exchange mind with others, and at the section New Power, Gained and Lost ...Doom transferred his mind into the body of an onlooker, Norman McArthur, an instant before his death. You wrote above that maybe he had transferred his mind through magic powers, but you can read there he used the ability he learned from Ovoid.200.191.197.21 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's another Wiki, so it's NOT a WP:RS. Pleasae find one before adding the material. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But the information was accepted by the official site. Even if the page become protected, i'll log in and revert your editions a billion of times. That's all I have to say.200.191.197.21 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the information was not 'accepted' by the official site. That's a website running the same wiki-engine software that we use here, and runs on the same anyone can edit model. Therefore, we cannot use it, per the Reliable Sources link I just gave you. Anyways, good luck with that threat to keep logging in and editing - the page has been semi-protected, and will be reverted just as often if you do get an account, which will be blocked, should you edit war more. ThuranX (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for wishing me luck, good friend! Yes I'm this user and I'm not afraid of you or to be blocked.Brazilian Man (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Doom: the truth

Hey ThuranX, I'd like to see your face now, and you to laugh at this:

All of those images, except for the covers, are listed here

• Here, in FF #10, we can see Doom exchanging his mind with Reed Richards, after he explained how he had learned the ability from the Ovoid race. He also says to Richards he has the power of controlling minds. (the image is small; use the page zooming)

• Here, in Fantastic Four #287, he explains to Peggy MacArthur what happened at the moment he possessed her husband body and escaped from death.

• Here we can see an unmasked Doctor Doom (in another body) being throttled by Beyonder in Fantastic Four #288. He is using the body of a man named Norman MacArthur but in this same history, Beyonder reconstructs his original body.

• Here, we can see how Doom exchanged his mind with Zarrko in FF #407. (the image is small; use the page zooming)

• And here, in FF #507, with Sue Richards; and here, with Johnny Storm; and here, with Ben Grimm.

Covers

• Fantastic Four #10: The first time that Doctor Doom used his mental power.

• Fantastic Four #288:Controlling the body of another man, Doctor Doom fights The Fantastic Four and the Beyonder.

• Fantastic Four #507: Here it's revealed that doctor Doom can send his mind not only from his orginal body, but also do it from previously controlled ones to others.

Brazilian Man (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, the constant hostility has to stop, you petty little troll. Second, If you'd done that in the FIRST place, we would have not had this problem; instead you kept insisting that because you knew it to be true, it must go in. That's not how Wikipedia works, and given that you were using shifting IPs, instead of your registered account, it's clear to me you knew you were avoiding policy. Now, incorporate that material, using your account, responsibly into the article, add the category, and go brag about how great you think you are in your own mind to someone who cares. All I ever asked for was citation, which you were incredibly opposed to providing.ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NO... NO... and NO! I know I made several mistakes. But, first, you hadn't asked me for issues, but you told me that the reason for removing the article from the category was because you think maybe his mental power had its source in the Doom's magic powers. Please let me remind you:

• No. He may have a magical spell that let him do that for a given story

• ...if at all, was magic, not telepathic

Later, you said that it wasn't an inherent power, and explained the rule which you claim you didn't make up, and which says "the character must use his power more than once, otherwise, such ability cannot even be mentioned"

• How many times hs (has) this power been used? Once? Not enough

• No, because we don't include every power that was used in one story years ago, and never brought up again

But I proved to you that you were totally and completely wrong, because you saw that Doom used it several times. And, about the hostility, do you remember when I tried to use the official site as an issue?

• Hahaha how funny

It was funny, wasn't it? You laughed at me, didn't you? It was not my fault, because I just thought you would laugh at me once more. Brazilian Man (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Truth Is, the Truth Hurts.Brazilian Man (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Onslaught battle

There's no details about Doom's fight (along with several Marvel's heroes) against Onslaught at the article.Brazilian Man (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Box image

This is parsing hairs, and I may be off, but I I believe that box image of Doom, is actually Kristoff Vernard (which is revealed in the following issue). -Sharp962 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

Silver Surfer's secondary villain

(If you are "You Know Who", I'd love to prevent you from editing this section, but unfortunately I'm not at my talk page. But please try to keep yourself as far as you can from it anyway.)

I noticed that Doom's article is within Silver Surfer template, as a secondary enemy. If that's so, he can be considered an Iron Man's secondary enemy also, because he fought Iron Man several times, much more than he did against other Marvel Heroes like Spider-Man, Hulk or X-Men. I'd like to know if I am "authorized" to put his article at Iron Man's template.Brazilian Man (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

While I agree that the previous state of the character history section was way out of hand, I believe the article may have been edited too much. For example, the article currently--in regards to Doom's history--stops at 2006, ignoring the last 3 years of the characters depictions and character development. Significant things to the Marvel Universe as a whole (such as Doom joining Osborn's Cabal) should be mentioned.

I fear DCincarnate may have been too overzealous in his cuts (and major cuts should really be discussed first on the talk page). I can only guess in an effort to bring the article up to good article level as the GA Review earlier on this page indicates. However, it should be noted that the review said to rewrite those sections, not remove them completely. While I appreciate DCincarnate's attempts to improve the article, he seems to removing information solely because he feels it's irrelevant without discussing such major edits with the community first.

24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge back AV and IOM articles

Setting up the discussion section since the editor proposing the merges hasn't provided a reason for the merges. - J Greb (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are useless. Other Media article contain unnecessary plot details of movies and cartoons. Same goes for Other Versions article; too much fictional padding. I had trimmed IOM material down and culled least significant OV appearances - way too many. DCincarnate (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Few things:

1. The culling was of the "least significant OV appearances" in your opinion.
2. Reasonable in story information is useful unless the article for the comic book story, series, TV show, film, or whatever provides better coverage of the character's use in that work.
3. Reasonable is not limited to a bullet point or "Dr Doom appeared in this laundry list of television shows." Such items tend to look like deletable trivia instead of helpful encyclopedia content.
4. Whether the IOM and AV are sections or stand alone articles, if a sub-section is pointing to another article as a primary, then {{Main}} should be used.

- J Greb (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The culling was of the "least significant OV appearances" in your opinion.

Doctor Doom's brief one-panel no-dialogue appearance in JLA/Avengers is not significant.

Reasonable in story information is useful unless the article for the comic book story, series, TV show, film, or whatever provides better coverage of the character's use in that work.

That is the case here. The movie/cartoon sections are nothing but plotcruft. The layman can read about the character's role in the 2005 Fantastic Four film's own article. The Other Media section should provide a brief overview of the character's appearances.

Reasonable is not limited to a bullet point or "Dr Doom appeared in this laundry list of television shows." Such items tend to look like deletable trivia instead of helpful encyclopedia content.

Extensive plot details are not helpful encyclopedia content. DCincarnate (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make either of the IOM and AV articles, however I was the one that removed the lists from this page and left only the re-directs. I don't care whether those articles are merged back or not. I simply noticed that those two articles exist. As those two articles exist, there is no reason to list anything on this page as everything is listed in more detail in their respective articles. In fact, the only reason why anyone would have created those articles in the first place is to free up space in this article. To bullet new lists here would be going against this not to mention make it more confusing for people looking up the info as they now have an article and a section to read and make it more difficult for editors adding new examples. As long as those articles exist, all that should be in those sections in the main Doom article is a) the re-direct b) a short paragraph or sentence explaining something like Doom has had lots of other appearances c) if an example is particularly notable -- note I said notable as per Wiki standards, not any one editors opinion, so notability would have to be proven -- then and only then could a short paragraph be added to the main Doom page explaining why that particular appearance was notable. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Against merge When there is too much information to fit on a page, you create side articles for it. No sense trying to jam all of that back together, or mass delete valid content some would enjoy reading. Dream Focus 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not too much info. [2] DCincarnate (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DCincarnate is responsible for more than half the article being deleted already it seems. [3] Having two side articles to hold information some would find interesting to read, and believe is worth having, makes sense. Merging it to the main article would increase the size greatly, and result in that just being deleted by someone anyway. By merge, did you mean to say delete the other two articles, and have just a token amount if anything at all copied over to the main article? Dream Focus 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. DCincarnate (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's your case, in that you want the two articles deleted and only some of the info in the main article, you have to prove notability for the examples you want in the main article. If you can't prove notability (not just opinion) for those examples, there's no reason they should be kept/moved to the main article over all the other examples you want deleted.24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already covered the Other Media article. The Other Versions stuff perhaps need some further discussion. DCincarnate (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I tested it on this article which you can see what it looks like on the history page and I vote Merge for other media but Unmerge for other versions for it is too large. In other media looked fine and it defianetly looks OK if you trim it like in the articles Rhino and Scarecrow. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Section 1980s-1990s

He also genuinely cares for his people of Latveria, who in turn are devoted to their leader; returning to Latveria after being temporarily deposed...

I'd like to say that Doom actually doesn't care about the latverians (though they think he does) or his henchmen, because the punishment for his men's failures is death, as you can see here and here.Brazilian Man (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think he does, he just happens to like power more. :) p.s. Why does the Unthinkable story arc have such a significant portion of the article? This arc was not very popular and is not commonly thought of as an accurate characteristation of the good Doctor. --194.106.137.50 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Power Suit/Armor?

The article on Powered exoskeletons states that Dr. Doom uses one. I don't think this is correct, at least not in the same definition of a power suit as one like Iron Man or of The Centurions.

I'd just assumed he was horribly disfigured, had metalic skin, and super power, but not that he was wearing it (as augmentation would then be classified in the realm of being a cyborg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

His is powered by magic. The monks helped make it for him. Dream Focus 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Doom Toys really do exist!

Doom had a Doom cycle [4]. Should we link to pictures of the toys in the article where they are mentioned? I search the official Marvel website and can't find them mentioned there, but there are pictures of them elsewhere. Dream Focus 04:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Doom and the Masters of Evil

... is not part of the regular 616-continuity. The references in the canon character history should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.233.79 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Not really sure what Philg88 was thinking here, but I'm starting a copyedit as discussed with the requester, Jhenderson777. Maybe in a collaborative effort we can address whatever other issues Philg88 was concerned about. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The title

Given that the title of the page is Doctor Doom, should the opening read -

Doctor Doom, also known as Victor von Doom

Leave it to you, Jhenderson777.

Also in the precis (lede, lead, intro, summary) is the word archenemy, which I split into arch enemy, that being the conventional formulation. An equally valid alternative would be arch-enemy, but I opted for the former for simplicity's sake. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation and development section copy edit proposal

Jhenderson 777, In dealing with the sections from History and development onwards, I sometimes found it difficult to follow the prose, which assumes a level of understanding about comic book genre that, perhaps, shouldn't be assumed. In addition, I was sometimes lost in the narrative itself. For that reason, and the possible reasons for Philg88's clarification template, rather than attempting a piecemeal edit the way I normally do, I propose a more fundamental re-write for readability and concision. That proposal follows. If you don't like it, or I got it wrong, or you want to change it, please do so. I won't make any changes to the relevant section(s) unless and until you agree they are warranted or desirable. The first proposed re-write is the section Creation and development —

Like many of Marvel's characters from the mid 1950s to the early 1970s, known as the Silver Age of comic books, Doctor Doom was conceived by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby as a nemesis for the popular Fantastic Four title. Lee wrote that he and Kirby were trying to dream up a "soul-stirring…super sensational new villain."[3] In considering a name, Lee latched onto "Doctor Doom" as "eloquent in its simplicity — magnificent in its implied menace."[3]

Because of deadline pressures on the creative team, the character was not given a full origin story in his debut,[3] but Fantastic Four leader Reed Richards mentions that Doom scarred his face during an attempt to contact the Netherworld at Richards' university, for which Doom was expelled. Richards suggests that Doom was last heard of searching Tibet for magical secrets. Two years later, in the Fantastic Four Annual #2,[4] Lee established Doom as the son of gypsies, born decades ago in Latveria when it was ruled by an unnamed nobleman called 'the Baron'. Doom's father tried to hide from him the fact that his mother was a witch, but Doom finds her occult instruments after his father dies from exposure after hiding from the Baron's men, who are hunting him for failing to cure the Baron's wife from a mortal illness. Doom swears revenge for his father's death, grows into a brilliant and headstrong man, is offered a place at the Empire State University[5], and is thus transported into the orbit of Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four. At the university Richards warns Doom about conducting dangerous experiments to contact the dead but Doom ignores him and causes the explosion that scars his face and leads to his expulsion. During travels in Tibet he is found by monks who teach him their disciplines and make him their master. In this Tibetan exile Doom fashions his trademark armor, and the mask only he can remove.[5]

Jack Kirby modelled Doom after the Grim Reaper representation of Death, with the armor signifying the skeleton: "It was the reason for the armor and the hood. Death is connected with armor and the inhuman-like steel (Vibranium-on level with Adamantium-caps shield is only other Vibranium in marvel universe). Death is something without mercy, and human flesh contains that mercy."[6] Kirby described Doom as being "paranoid", tortured by his twisted face and wanting to re-fashion the the whole world in his image.[6] Kirby went on to say that "Doom is an evil person, but he's not always been evil. He was [respected]... but but through a flaw in his own character, he was a perfectionist."[7] At one point in the 1970s Kirby drew his impression of what Doom would look like under the mask, giving Doom only "a tiny scar on his cheek."[8] Due to this slight imperfection, Doom hides his face not from the world, but from himself.[8] According to Kirby, this is the motivation for Doom's vengefulness against the world.[7] Typical of Lee's written characterization of Doom is his arrogance and pride, which lead to Doom's disfigurement by his own machine, and to the failures of many of his schemes.[9]

Despite the fact that the Fantastic Four fought various villains repeatedly, such as the Mole Man, Skrulls, the Miracle Man, and Namor the Sub-Mariner, Doctor Doom developed into their arch nemesis.[10]

During the 1970s, Doom branched out to more Marvel titles, with a battle between Doom and Prince Rudolfo over control of Latveria being featured in Astonishing Tales.[11] Doom also attempts to use the Hulk as his slave during two issues of The Incredible Hulk.[12] He made several appearances in the story arcs of Super-Villain Team-Up, starting in 1975, as well as appearances in Marvel Team-Up, beginning with issue #42 (February 1976). During that time, Doom's origin was further fleshed out to give him a childhood companion, Valeria, and it was revealed that his mother, Cynthia von Doom, had sold her soul to Mephisto (the Devil).[13]

Over to you Jhenderson777. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I was having a browse through GOCE and thought I'd poke my nose in. I think the last paragraph should be worded slightly differently, so it sounds more product based rather than sounding a little "in-universe-y".

During the 1970s, Doom was featured in other Marvel titles such as Astonishing Tales, where he and Prince Rudolfo fought for control over Latveria [11] and 2 issues of The Incredible Hulk, where he attempts to enslave the Hulk. Doom also featured in Super-Villain Team-up (1975) and Marvel Team-up from issue #42 (February 1976). During that time, Doom's background was further developed with the addition of a childhood companion, Valeria, and the revelation that his mother, Cynthia von Doom had sold her soul to Mephisto (the Devil). [13]

Just my two cents. --Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr Doom's Doom

In a 1960's animated version of Spiderman the Main villian was Dr Doom-who in the last episode is destroyed by his own Doom Ray! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.72.154 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweeping Changes A.K.A. None Shall Escape the Scrutiny of DOOM!

I'm going to start rigorously going through this article and address

a) The rambling, tag-on sentences that got this tagged as "in-universe" b) Odd grammar c) Opinions and perceptions disguised as factual information

For C, I will attempt to add missing citations, but will cut things for which I have no appropriate reference. Please do not take this personally; I welcome additional information with proper citations.

For A, I must stress to other contributors that this is at least pretends to be an encyclopedic entry, so if you must add fun facts about our favorite ironclad tyrant, I ask that you consider whether or not they provide necessary information, or at least think about putting them a new section.

I look forward to working with everyone and bringing the reign of the great Victor von Doom to this pitiful internet encyclopedia.

FACE7 (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Latveria

Why does it say in the first line that Latveria is in Los Angeles? That doesn't make any sense but is that true? And I can't find anything, anywhere else on the internet that says his name is "Doctor Doom not of Latveria," so where is the evidence that the "not of Latveria" is part of his name? ...because it's confusing. Also, "Latveria" is linked at least four times in the first paragraph... I don't think it's supposed to be done that way.

Iminrainbows (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

can we have a list of appearances please?

I realize the character has been around forever and a day, but a comprehensive list of his appearances would increase the usefulness of this entry immensely. Someone should get one started. It would be a great help in getting cross-referencing underway too. Thetrellan (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image of Doctor Doom, aside from appearing with cluttered foreground and background, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article in that he is presented out of proportion and appears to be a giant. It's a dramatic image, but we're not supposed to use images decoratively. Rather, we have to use them educationally. We could say "shown symbolically as a giant" in the caption, but that misses the point — which is that we need a plain, informative image of him. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Doctor Doom/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

the grammer in this was really bad. it should be checked more often.

Last edited at 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

Granted, Doom has had a long career in the comics, but so have Batman and Spider-Man, and their fictional bios are nowhere near as long. This needs a desperate trim to weed out insanely overdetailed, sometimes panel-by-panel plot descriptions. I'm glad to talk tackle it, but it's a big job and I'm hoping some of my fellow WPC editors can help. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doctor Doom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/Nov_previews/BruDoom.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Doctor
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Doctor
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.panelsofawesome.com/2008/04/22/countdown-top-10-comic-book-villains/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413192513/http://www.comicon.com:80/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=001050 to http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=001050
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.universalorlando.com/ioa_attr_fearfall.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

New Neutral Image

Victor Von Doom has been a heroic character since the events of 2015's Secret Wars, becoming a superhero himself following the events of 2016's Civil War II. Therefore, I believe the most appropriate image to use on the main page is the following image:

Doctor Doom
File:Infamous Iron Man Vol 1 1 Textless.jpg Artwork for the cover of Infamous Iron Man vol. 1, 1 (October, 2016 Marvel Comics)  Art by Alex Maleev

Victor Von Doom is the third character to take on the mantle of Iron Man, following Tony Stark and James Rhodes (Riri Williams is Ironheart, nor Iron Man). This image portrays the look of both the classic villainous version of Doom and the newer post-Secret Wars heroic version of Doom. Does anybody have any reasons that this image is not suited for this article?

Impending_IP (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not as a lead image but it could probably fit in the body. I recommend commentary though. Also free use images don't belong on the talk pages though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Rename Page

This page should be renamed Victor Von Doom.

The reason for this?

As revealed in the pages of Infamous Iron Man, Victor is no longer known as "Doctor Doom", and doesn't refer to himself as such.

Proof: [5] [6] [7] [8]

Impending_IP (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I oppose per WP:Commonname and WP:Recentism. That's like changing the name of Doctor Octopus to Otto Octavius becuase he was Spider-Man for awhile. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I oppose per WP:Commonname and WP:Recentism. This seems a WP:SNOWBALL, and I've never said that before. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I also oppose the change, as the current title is the one most commonly used. David A (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring sockpuppet

User:Impending IP, also editing as 86.43.187.228, continues to edit-war to reinsert inappropriate edits that at least two editors have reverted over the past few days. He appears to be slow-motion edit-warring in a transparent attempt to avoid WP:3RR, and if he reverts once more, I will report him for 3RR and explain the slow-motion circumstances. He has been warned on his talk page and has decided to take a contentious attitude and refuses to discuss the issue on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think he edited the page again and I dont know how to revert it and wikipedia doesnt have a button to flag the page but it pretty much just says Dr Doom is really gay all over the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9600:25D0:8491:1630:9E36:E318 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image violates many of the guidelines, which specify a clean, clear image of the character's best-known look, with no distracting background. Before replacing the image, I'd like other editors to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Character with most appearances

"in his constant battles with heroes and other villains, Doctor Doom has appeared more times than any other character" - this suggests that Doom has appeared in more total issues than any other Marvel character; there is no way this can be true. Doom cannot possibly have appeared in more comics than Spider-Man, who at one time was appearing in four series every single month as well as guest spots, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 27. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Alma mater

Both this and Cynthia Von Doom's page refer to Empire State University as the university Doctor Doom attended (before being expelled). Other sources, however, clarify that it's in fact a separate university: State University, in Hegeman. Are there any definitive sources showing which is correct? Or, is it that at the time of the character's conception, or throughout its publication history, the details have simply changes / been ambiguous? Rovack (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"I've always wanted power. Now I have an unlimited supply." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I've always wanted power. Now I have an unlimited supply.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 16#I've always wanted power. Now I have an unlimited supply. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Should his second fortnite appearance be its own point in merchandise or with the 2020 point Slatersam22 (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry supposed to put in it’s own topic Slatersam22 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Latveria Merge Discussion

Re-opening this per the closure suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latveria. I have already outlined my reasons why I feel the article should be merged there, but for the sake of easy discussion I will repost them here:

-Every source that significantly analyzes Latveria is only doing so within the context of its impact on Doctor Doom's character. Several sources used in the article, as well as ones acknowledged in the AfD, all suffer this problem. Those that don't are largely unusable for the sake of notability.

-Length is not an issue due to much of Latveria's current content being unnecessary in-universe information and lists that are ultimately fluff and not necessary for understanding Latveria and its role. Much of it can be trimmed down, made more concise, and included as a subsection in the current Doom article.

-Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE: "Does other information provide needed context?" and "Do related topics provide needed context?" Yes to both. Latveria and Doom are intrinsically tied together in coverage, and Doom is fundamentally a necessary part of understanding why Latveria is important. Latveria can be better understood by readers as part of Doom's article, as the needed context for its impact on Doom and Doom's impact on Latveria can be more accurately weighed in one article.

Pinging the participants in the AfD discussion: @DoctorWhoFan91, @BOZ, @Walsh90210, @Rtkat3, and @Jclemens, to weigh their thoughts on the matter, since the AfD was closed before my points could be responded to in the initial discussion. If any clarification is needed on my points, then I am more than willing to elaborate on any concerns or questions. As of right now, however, I do not see a significant reason why Latveria inherently needs to be a separate article from Doom, and I believe them better off merged as a result of the reasons outlined above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am divided on whether Latveria should be merged to Doctor Doom or not, as some of it might not flow properly in that article; as a first step though, I think we should remove the in-universe fluff (I have started on it), and replace stuff with wikilink in Latveria where data is duplicated between the two. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, and it definitely helps with gauging just how much content is in Latveria's article. Let me know if you need help with that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted/moved around a fourth of the article by removing most/all unnecessary/duplicated data. So I would say that a merge could be moderately complex to be done properly, as the Doctor Doom article is quite large, and this is badly referenced. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 I will say that I feel as though most of the statistics and known inhabitants sections probably aren't needed. The latter is a text wall of predominantly minor characters with no other mentions on Wikipedia, while the former has some worthwhile info that's better off re-shuffled and cleaned of fluff to another section (Perhaps the usual plot? I feel it could be condensed with the plot to a general summary of Latveria's role and presence) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah, that's why I mention properly. Someone needs to sort out what is fluff to be excluded, and what is just about notable enough. Similarly for in other media(do we mention Latveria where it also appears, or just axe the section while merging) or the reception(give it a separate section, try to add it alongside, etc). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I've made my stance known enough already, so I'll wait for others to make their input on what should be cut. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Another page to redirect Latveria to is the regions and countries section of Features of the Marvel Universe if it comes to the merge happening. Then a brief mentioning of it's notable members can be added including that mutant team that Doctor Doom established in light of the activities done by Orchis. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that still doesn't address the issue of Latveria being inherently connected with Doom. You need one to understand the other and putting Latveria there won't resolve that issue (Especially given how terrible the Features article is, like damn) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Doctor Doom is not the only person to live in Latveria. His mother lived there and so did Dreadknight, Lucia von Bardas, and the Seven Daggers of Latveria. So Latveria is not all about Doctor Doom. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Rtkat3 these are minor characters who are not discussed in significant coverage that discusses the subject's notability, and if they are, they are minor aspects of it compared to the amount of shared analysis between Doom and Latveria. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Considering Latveria is almost certainly to get new sources and commentary during the MCU integration of Dr. Doom, I think trimming and leaving it standalone is the best option, in light of the sourcing we DO already have. "Only covered in the context of another fictional topic" is not a reason for merger, let alone deletion, of a fictional element. I mean, One Ring is only covered in the contest of LotR, and yet it's GA. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Only in the context of Dr. Doom though, so it can be added in Doctor Doom. Tolkien's legendarium gets a lot of scholarly works on it, Marvel comics do not- Most of One Ring is its origin and analysis in the context of real-world history and myth. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. Doctor Doom is already over 10k words, which is when WP:CANYOUREADTHIS suggests splitting subtopics out. That is, even if the main topic for Latveria were Doctor Doom (it's not) our size style guide still suggests keeping it in a separate article due to size. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  It was over 10k words bcs it's badly written. If someone was to shorten it enough, the latter part of your concern will be fixed. How is the main topic for Latveria not Doctor Doom, he is the only major character who lives there. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL states we shouldn't keep something based on a "future" event that we cannot guarantee will happen. Additionally, I have cited policy for my rationales above with Wikipedia:NOPAGE, so this clearly is grounded in the rules and is a valid argument. Per DWFan, Lord of the Rings has received such significant scholarly analysis that nearly anything has significant coverage enough to make it so a merge between a large majority of the subjects would be unwieldy, hence for the separation, per NOPAGE, among other policies. Marvel does not have as much scholarly coverage to an extent that LotR does, and if it did exist to an extent that LotR had in the scope of Latveria, then these sources would have been on display during the AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  That would only be if the topic weren't already notable. Latveria is. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens I'm a bit confused what your argument is. Could you clarify? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  There exists sufficient independent reliable sourcing to maintain Latveria as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens Very few of the sources discuss Latveria independently of Doctor Doom, and those that do aren't very helpful for Reception. I'm a bit cramped for time right now, but if you would like, I can try and do a thorough source analysis tomorrow to illustrate what I mean. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  They don't have to be independent of Doctor Doom to establish notability. That's not what WP:IRS says at any point. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens per above, Wikipedia:NOPAGE still states that even if coverage exists, the coverage can often be better covered at larger articles. In this case, Latveria is a relatively small target and Doom can easily fit Latveria with some editing. If all coverage is covering Doom and Latveria together, there's no real reason why Latveria inherently needs to be separate, as it would better benefit readers to have their content together. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are entitled to that opinion; I do not share it. WP:SS is a better model for subtopics like this, but seems to get used badly in fictional topics, and AfDs have often seemed oblivious to the hierarchical nature of such topics. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  We'll agree to disagree on our respective approaches, then. For now, I'll back out of debating further, since I have already made my points clear enough, and wait to see how further discussion develops on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I support the merge. I realize I was in the minority in advocating for the deletion of Latveria, but after reviewing the sources, I still believe that they don't provide significant coverage. The few sources mostly focus on Doctor Doom. I see concerns that this article also needs a lot of work. There are several sections that are unsourced or marked as overly lengthy, so a good initial step would be to condense these areas for clarity. Jontesta (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I did my best to condense the article. I didn't outright remove unsourced material, but I did tag areas that needed sources and proper review. If there wasn't already enough room already, there should easily be room to cover the few verifiable aspects of Latveria here. On a tangent, someone should deal with the original research here, and the amount of duplication between the publication history and biography. Jontesta (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I was mostly discussing Latveria earlier in regard to cleanup, but holy cow, I did not realize just how much cleanup Dr. Doom actually needed. It honestly might be worthwhile doing some touchups to this guy's article given just how much coverage there is on him, but I'll hold off on doing so until further consensus can develop, especially in regards to the Latveria merge discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Latveria is riddled with original research and unsourced claims, but I summarized it instead of removing it. There should be no issues about length now. It is possible to reduce it even further upon merge, since there is a lot overlap between the history of Latveria and the history of Doom and his close associates. Jontesta (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens that a merge is premature at this time. BOZ (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)