Talk:Doctor Doom

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

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.

"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)

I agree that a merge is premature. A merging of Latveria and Doctor Doom isn't necessary. Those two articles existing separately has been working well so far and I see no reason to change that. Parting Shot (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A merge in my opinion is too soon because I have a feeling that if we merge these two articles together it would just be redundant as in a year we could get more lore and attention to Latveria due to Doomsday and the article might just return anyway. However I can also recognize that the article has many issues but for now at least i say we keep it. And like you said I don't see any reason to change it Nuka-king (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there any hint that Latveria (not just Doom) will be featured in the film? The film has already announced a huge number of characters, so his characterization may be small and to the point. Cambalachero (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, arguing this based on upcoming content is kind of a Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL argument. We don't know what kind of coverage will be obtained for either subject. Arguing one thing shouldn't happen because of potential for more isn't something we can predict, and if nothing happens, we're going to be having this discussion in a few months. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Other versions

The section "Other versions" is all filled with just plot information, with zero out-of-universe info. Some examples may deserve to be mentioned (Doom 2099 had a standalone comic, Ultimate Doom was a villain of several Ultimate comics and I think there was a minor controversy over his goat legs), but we need to see actual sources discussing them to assess their relevance. As written right now, they would all be candidates for removal. Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The whole article needs a trim down for size reasons, but rewriting Doom will be a massive task given how big of a character he is, especially given the upcoming films making him a much more popular topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)