Talk:Doctor Strange/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ultimate Doctor Strange and Other Doctor Strange

• Other Doctor Strange: http://www.trulyunusual.com/wards/showthread.php?t=3030
• In the Ultimate Marvel is the son of this Ultimate Doctor Strange.
• The Marvel 2099.
• In the 1602 miniseries.

--Brown Shoes22 17:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never read anything with Ultimate Doctor Strange, but his summation in this entry makes less than no sense. --Signing unsigned comment by 12.215.224.101Talk 23:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Article on Strange: Beginnings and Endings

Strange: Beginnings and Endings Add info or Article would is a good idea ?--Brown Shoes22 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Character controversy

I'm completely agree and all, but POV much? Kusonaga 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template, non-NPOV

Elsewhere in the ComicsProject, such subjective lists of stories have been rejected as non-NPOV.

This section says, for example, "Some consider Ditko, Englehart, and Stern the three writers to have mastered Dr. Strange." Aside from there being no citation, it shard to imagine that scripter and co-creator Stan Lee would be left out, for example. What is the criteria for inclusion here? Are these stories award-winners? Did they cause a spike in sales, as per the annual published circulatoin statement of industry-press reportage? Is there citable or linkable concensus? Right now it appears to be a list of one or two editors' personal favorites.

Other non-Wikistyle elements include temporal terms as as "recent"; uncited and contradictory statements ("Some fans consider this one of the best recent Dr. Strange stories. Others consider the plot rather standard"), non-encyclopedic language ("save his mother from Mephisto's clutches in Hell!", etc.)

It also confuses what it's about. A list of significant stories would list the story/arc title and where the story appeared. This is not a list of significant stories, but a list of significant publications, including reprint book-collections.

In any event, this is a problematic section that per Wikistandards needs to be deleted or heavily modified for style and objectivity. — Tenebrae 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly two weeks without input either way, I'm taking the information under "Significant stories" and blending it within "Character history" in order that any signifiance be placed within a context. I'm culling items for which the "Signif Stories" section gave contradictory (and uncited) statements such as "Some fans consider this one of the best recent Dr. Strange stories. Others consider the plot rather standard". — Tenebrae 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

User:Rorschach567's incivility in calling any fellow editor, let alone someone as conscientious and dedicated as User:CovenantD, "a moron" is reprenensible behavior. I urge Rorschach567, with whom I have had a good-faith dealing, to please temper his tone; it just isn't necessary when there are so many other ways in the wonderfully elastic English language in which to make a point.

Also, WikiProject Comics style is to use the "fictional character" phrasing in intros, for consistency and other reasons. -- Tenebrae 13:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote for the above, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars#Comic_book_characters:

The opening sentence is currently formatted as "{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a fictional (character/superhero/supervillain) in the ''Example'' Comics ''Example'' Universe. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year})."

-- Tenebrae 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Status

Unlike every other superhero, the government apparently wanted to seek a compromise with Dr Strange concerning the SRA rather than just saying "if you don't sign up, you're on the wanted list", as seen in Civil War #1 (Reed Richards tells Dr Strange this). Should that be noted in the small entry he has on his page? Sera404 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

David Goyer note

In an article for Comics Scene, David Goyer noted that he wrote a screenplay for Doctor Strange in the 1990's. He noted that he wanted to follow the origin storyline-a selfish, acquisitive man gets redeemed when going to Tibet and studying under a mystic. Then The Shadow came out in 1994 which features a similar origin. While The Shadow has since been largely forgotten, Batman Begins also featured a somewhat similar origin (although Wayne was self-absorbed, he was not really acquisitive). Goyer stated this in Comics Scene #49.

Goyer's screenplay would have included Doctor Strange working with a female police profiler to investigate some crimes-in retrospect this could indicate the influence of Doctor Mordrid.

Enda80 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Enda80

Since when is Doctor Strange immortal?

The character box lists him as immortal. When did this happen and why isn't it listed under powers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seekquaze (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

It isn't exactly a power, and immortality isn't quite right. A better description would be "ageless". While I do not have the specific issue numbers at hand, it happened near the back end of aconfrontation with the character Silver Dagger (comics) during the Steve Englehart and Frank Brunner era. In spite of his agelessness, it is still possible for him to die of unnatural causes. -- GJD 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the article, if this helps:

After taking his lover Clea as his disciple (Marvel Premiere #12, Nov. 1973), one of his first tasks as Sorcerer Supreme is to confront Death. After proving himself worthy, Strange is granted the immortality befitting his new role. As Sorcerer Supreme, Dr. Strange is near ageless and immune to dying from natural causes. His predecessor, the Ancient One, had lived for over five centuries.

--Tenebrae 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

        This takes place in Doctor Strange Vol 2 #4. 
        Gethe 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Strange in New Avengers

doctor strange is schdualed to be a NEW AVENGER after the civil war (new anvengers #27...)

a proof can be found here:

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.0.45.203 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Dr. Strange has now officially appeared as a New Avenger, I move that we should add his membership to the team on his current affiliations CapoCastillo 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of Sanctum Sanctorum

It wasn't near 177A Bleecker Street, it is 177A Bleecker Street, as Strange received a telegram addressed to "Steven Saunders" showing that address -- the cosmic being Eternity had altered collective human memory to give him a secret identity. I don't have the specific comic to cite it, but perhaps another editor could do so?

As far as the apartment building in this universe is concerned, the front door, including the address number, was shown in a television documentary, on either the A&E channel or the History channel as I recall, and while I don't remember which writer it was with certainty, I'm fairly sure it was not Roy Thomas. -- Davidkevin 19:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The address on the telegram may have been from an issue of vol. 1 of The Defenders during the "Steven Saunders" period, but I also recall a Defenders storyline in which the building appeared to change addresses to confuse antagonists who were looking for it. I didn't write the passage you're disputing, but the Defenders story may have prompted the original writer to add the "near" adjective. 71.204.204.249 14:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy Thomas said in an interview -- God knows where, I'd have to find it -- that it was the address where he and Bill Everett were roommates for a time, with the "A" added. Time to hit Alter Ego and try to look it up! --Tenebrae 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Defenders and Nightstalkers

When fighting the undying ones, Dr. Strange manipulates the Hulk and Namor to assist him in defeating them. When Baron Mordo returns the identity of Stephen Strange to Dr. Strange, Dr. Strange again recruits the Hulk and Namor and were soon joined by the Silver Surfer to form the Defenders. Also during this time Doctor Strange gathers the anti-heroes the Hulk, Namor the Sub-Mariner and the Silver Surfer to form the sporadically summoned superhero "non-team", the Defenders.

That last sentence just repeats the sentence before it ilovemrdoe 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Composed" versus "comprised"

In the first paragraph of the section of this article entitled "Powers and abilities," a clause identifying the members of "'the Vishanti,' a trinity of godly beings" has been going back and forth between saying it is "composed of" and "comprised of" its three members. According to English usage experts (James J. Kilpatrick has been particularly insistent about this in his syndicated newspaper column "The Writer's Art" [2]), the proper use of "to comprise" would be to say "'the Vishanti' comprises..." the three beings. Logically this is absurd, as it puts the onus of action on the whole, which does nothing, while the reality of the situation is that the parts come together to form the whole. Therefore, my feeling has been that the best option is to avoid the use of the verb "to comprise" entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbrittreid (talk • contribs) 19:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I didn't sign? Very sorry (unless it was actually a system glitch and not my fault, but that's not my assumption)! Ted Watson 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Comics

I'm really confused, after reading the list of Dr. Strange Comics on the main page. I am holding in my hand Strange Tales #184 from March 1976. Where does that fit into things? (JNS)

JNS -- Your issue is a reprint issue. Strange Tales #182 - 188 reprinted stories from earlier issues of Strange Tales featuring Doctor Strange. Your particular issue, Strange Tales #184, reprints the Doctor Strange story from Strange Tales #132 and the Doctor Strange story (minus one of the original pages) from Strange Tales #133.75.80.67.22 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)(AAO)

A separate issue. According to this list there is a 1992 Doctor Strange Special. I've searched for it but have yet to see anyone else definitively having it. I believe the listing for "Doctor Strange: Sorcerer Supreme Special (1992)" in series and mini-series subsection is the same as the "Doctor Strange & Ghost Rider Special #1 (April 1991; reprints only)" from the one-shots and graphic novels section. If i am mistaken, could someone with more exact knowledge provide more background info on that 1992 Special. I believe it is likely, that based upon its listing here, this 1992 Special has made its way to a few fansites, none of which give any further detail on the issue in question than has been given here. 75.80.67.22 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)(AAO)

I know that it has been almost a year, but for your elucidation, The Grand Comics Database lists this as a simple annual tying into the regular Strange series of the time. They say it is a #2, but also that it is the first of three such issues. Furthermore, they have it as Part 4 of an Annuals cross-over event, "The Return of the Defenders." The main story was written by Roy Thomas and drawn by E. R. Cruz & Kevin Tinsley. Ted Watson 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC) My mistake, as what I described is also listed. My apologies. Thus, GCD has no such Dr. Strange special listed. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as they don't list Malibu's 6-issue Bruce Lee miniseries of the mid-90s, and didn't list two of NOW's early '90s Green Hornet minis until I signed up there about two years ago. Ted Watson 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stan Lee disowns?

This doesnt mkae any sense to me. I watched the film and it wasnt bad at all. I remember they had little snipits of Stan lee talking about the character during the commercial brake. Now why would he do that if he thought the movie was "cammpy"?-DiablosInfernal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.150.194 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea, good cover

Ought there to be a mention of the notorious Amy Grant issue? I knew about that before I knew almost anything else about Strange. Asat 07:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eternity

The article claims that Eternity's first appearance is Strange Tales 146, but it's actually 138 (I'm holding it in my hands!). Changing it would involve rewriting the entire paragraph, though, and I don't feel qualified to do that. Anyone? 208.66.211.217 18:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a tackle.--Tenebrae 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This was still incorrect, so I took a swing at it. I added a paragraph on characters introduced by Ditko in order to rescue some of the nice verbiage about the significance of the Eternity character from the misinfo regarding that debut occurring in Ditko's last issue. 75.73.21.101 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Sergei Alderman

Fair use rationale for Image:ST146.jpg

Image:ST146.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 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 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

SHB Image

While the new image more closely adheres to the guidelines, with its clearer frontal view minus obscuring background and other artifacts, it would have been better for the editor who inserted it to have made of a note of just that, on this talk page. Just a matter of collaborative communication. Thanks.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TalesOfSuspense41.jpg

Image:TalesOfSuspense41.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) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DeodatoDrStrange.jpg

Image:DeodatoDrStrange.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) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy

I have just edited text under the section Doctor Strange as deus ex machina describing an encounter between Strange and the Guardians of the Galaxy. I have added the missing issue numbers for that encounter, and have also tried to clear up some confusion. This is the text before I edited it, with the confusing passages in bold:

"In Guardians of the Galaxy , Dr. Strange brought Vance Astro back to the 20th Century where Charlie-27 was about to be murdered by a Badoon Captain named L'Matto. The long-standing battle, which was appearing to be in L'Matto's favor, suddenly went in Vance and Charlie's favor when Aleta Ogord became the new Starhawk. With Dr. Strange's help, she defeated the Captain Universe-empowered L'Matto and then exorcised the Uni-Power from L'Matto's body and returned with it to the 20th Century; there, they parted ways with Strange, who returned to his studies, while the Uni-Power headed off to find a new host."

If Strange brought Astro to the duel, which was in the 20th century, then how could they return from the duel to the 20th century, when they were already there? In truth, Strange did bring Astro to the duel, but he and the other Guardians were already in the 20th century, having travelled there from the 31st century alternate timeline they call home. They arrived in Guardians of the Galaxy #27, spent issues 27-29 marginally involved in the Infinity War, and then moved into the events described above, where Astro split off from the other Guardians and then reunited with them with Dr. Strange's help. I've edited the text accordingly. -- Pennyforth (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

To explain my rv of 5 March 2008 User:Tbrittreid: "External links" are for "for further reading" links only, and not for sources directly used as article references, such as, for example, the Grand Comics Database and the The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators, which confirm basics such as titles, credits, cover dates, etc. Those go under "References," which is a separate section when the subhead "Footnotes" is used. Also please not: "Sources" is not a standard Wikipedia subhead at WP:CITE. Thanks for allowing me to explain my revision. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorcerous phrases

I am moving this info from the main page. As another editor pointed out, it is not particularly encylopedic. Still, I'm preserving it here on the talk page for posterity. :)

Co-creator and longtime original scripter Stan Lee wrote many alliterative exclamations and incantations that Dr. Strange would utter. Lee and later writers often created characters and storylines based on these casually created phrases:

• "By the Flames of the Faltine!"
• "By the Sons of Satannish!"
• "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!"
• "By the Hoary Hand of Hoggoth!"
• "By the Ruby Rings of Raggadorr!"
• "By the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak!"
• "By the Deathless Vishanti!"
• "By the Vapors of the Vishanti!"
• "By the Eye of Agamotto!"
• "By the Vapors [also: Vipers] of Valtorr!"
• "By the Images of Ikonn!"
• "By the Demons of Denak!"
• "By the Fangs of Farallah!"
• "By the Mystic Moons of Munnopor!"
• "By the Shades of the Seraphim!"
• "By the Serpents of the Seraphim!"
• "By the Omnipotent Oshtur!"
• "By the fires of Ikthalon!"
• "By the Wondrous Winds [also: Wand] of Watoomb!"

204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would only say that if it's worth preserving for posterity, then it belongs in the article. Given that these are such an integral part of the character, and given the insight into the creative process that the opening two sentences give, one can make an argument for ... well, as you say, posterity. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I second Tenebrae's motion. Ted Watson (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind personally, but it was User:Pairadox who raised the issue - I do agree with him on this one, that it doesn't contribute much to the article, but I won't oppose anyone reverting my last change. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Same thing with similar situation at Beast (comics). 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the tag after seeing yet another phrase tacked onto the end with no context or reference. A list of random phrases that writers have used isn't really much more than random trivia. Since the justification for having them included is "Lee and later writers often created characters and storylines based on these casually created phrases," then show some of those cases. Put them in the perspective of the larger picture. Pairadox (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel the need to qualify my earlier seconding of the motion. At least one of these, "By the Eye of Agamotto!" is nothing more than an exclamation of Strange's, analogous to Superman's "Great Krypton!" It is no sorcerous incantation or spell. After all, Stephen wore it around his neck. Such don't really belong on this list. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Hugo Strange"

Hugo Strange, a DC Comics supervillain, possesses the title "Doctor" and when Steve Englehart revived this Golden Age character during his highly regarded late 1970s run on Batman in Detective Comics, he even included a "Dr. Strange" joke, Englehart having previously written a highly regarded—if abruptly dropped—run of the Marvel sorceror. Hence, the line is not inappropriate. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the points of having a hatnote is to distinguish confusable terms, not listing every possible thing which shares a similar name. See WP:NAMB for further details. Make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious place where confusion can sneak in is between Doc Strange and Hugo Strange as they have both been called Hugo Strange. Is anyone going to search for Hugo Strange by Doctor Strange? He might technically be known as "Dr." and the article calls him "Pofessor" but the most commonly occurring name is "Hugo Strange") brings up the two Wikipedia articles). If they somehow turned up here they'd follow the hatnote to Doc Strange which (rightly) has a hatnote pointing to Hugo Strange. Interestingly what I feel does need hatnoting is the Hugo Strange article which should suggest Doc Strange as an alternative. (Emperor (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008

(UTC))

I agree with this (I'm the one who brought this up in the first place) --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities

I've tried to edit for clarity for clarity (notably, it was unclear what the pronouns were referring to). Should it be placed under "Universal sources", or does it apply to the rest of these sections? Also the final sentence in this graf is so unclear, I've commented-it out on the article page (and have put it in ital here simply to indicate which sentence I mean) with my questions following it:

The canon suggests that virtually every human is capable of learning and harnessing magic — considered simply a form of energy in the Marvel universe — through training; however each person has a different potential. The Ancient One saw in Stephen an incredible potential, quite likely the greatest on Earth. This has been confirmed by various events such as in "Unthinkable" where Doctor Doom had dedicated himself to magic, but was still only a mid-level mage compared to Stephen. QUESTIONS: When and in what comics was "Unthinkable"? Was it a single story or a story arc? What happened that confirmed whatever -- did Doom admit it, or did someone else say it, or what?

-- Tenebrae 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Unthinkable" was an arc in the Fantastic Four comic, where Doctor Doom makes a pact with some demons to boost his magic skills so he can beat Reed Richards. The Fantastic Four gets their butts kicked, but Dr. Strange manages to help the FF out. Rabidwolfe 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Tenebrae 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Unthinkable" should also be added to the list of crossovers Dr. Strange has appeared in, given his absolutely pivotal role in the story. 66.30.112.98 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

David Goyer note

In an article for Comics Scene, David Goyer noted that he wrote a screenplay for Doctor Strange in the 1990's. He noted that he wanted to follow the origin storyline-a selfish, acquisitive man gets redeemed when going to Tibet and studying under a mystic. Then The Shadow came out in 1994 which features a similar origin. While The Shadow has since been largely forgotten, Batman Begins also featured a somewhat similar origin (although Waye was self-absorbed, he was not really acquisitive)

Note that the film Doctor Mordrid was obviously based on Doctor Strange.

01:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)~Enda80

New Separate Section for Artifacts?

Should Artifacts (currently under Powers & Abilities) be broken out into its own section? The Eye and Orb, along with the Cloak, Book of Vishanti, Darkhold, etc, etc, are significant enough to merit a new section.... I went ahead and did it, let's see if everyone likes. Rkilarski (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC).Other Marvel Characters are referenced,so they should remain as is-separate.

Why is over half of this page about Dr. Strange in the last five years and in books other than his own?

From reading this page it seems like Dr. Strange kinda did some stuff in the 60's and kinda did some stuff in the 70's and 80's, did next to nothing in the 90's and did all the really important stuff in the last five years and in Avengers titles. Dr. Strange gets abused enough. Apparantly eliminating his hands eliminates his powers even though a hand injury is how he got his powers to begin with????? (ie World War Hulk) Anyway, the stuff from the last five years in Avengers titles is from writers who evidently don't care about Dr. Strange. Why isn't there more from when he was actually written by people who actually care about him? And please indulge a brief rant: So Dr. Strange is giving up the title of Sorceror Supreme because he used dark magic. Am I missing something here? Shouldn't he have given it up on day one then? And, like, five hundred other times? Shouldn't they require people to actually read a Dr. Strange comic before they use him as a minor character? I haven't seen Dr. Strange-abuse like this since Batman coldcocked him in that Access nonsense. My point is, the vast majority of stuff on this page is from House of M to Dark Reign, leaving out the thirty years worth of stories by people who actually know and care about Dr. Strange. That seems like a shame. There's a little bit of Vol. 1 stuff, but Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 are almost entirely missing. That area of Dr. Strange history should be, at the very least, as specific as the New Avengers nonsense from recent years. Oh, and one more rant while I'm on the subject: Am I wrong or did Captain America in a recent issue of New Avengers throw a shield at Dormammu's throat which caused him to gag -- Seriously? Seriously? And this is the most well-represented part of the Dr. Strange mythos on this page?F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for reorganization

This page definitely should be reorganized. Part of the reason I believe this is in my rant above. The recent activity is given way more emphasis on the page than should an accurate portrait of who Dr. Strange is. Here's my suggestion: Instead of "Silver age," which makes it look to the outsider like Dr. Strange was a minor silver age character who was miraculously revived by Avengers writers, I suggest that we have a section called "Ongoing series" and three subsections called "Strange Tales and Vol. 1," "Vol. 2," and "Vol. 3" or something like that. Then the information in them should be beefed up substantially (I'll do some of thatt -- I'm not the sort to complain without actually doing the work -- but I certainly need help with that). As with other Wikipedia pages about comics, actual Dr. Strange storylines ("Strangers Among Us" and "Last Rites" for example) could be sub headings under that. Then we could have a section called "Group affiliations" with a subheading for Defenders, one for The Nightstalkers and Midnight Sons and one for The New Avengers. The "Defenders and Nightstalkers and Beyond" section or whatever it's called is very strange because it has a bunch of stuff about the Defenders and Nightstalkers then it has the whole thing from Vol. 3 #50, just randomly, as if his ongoing series just stopped some nebulous time in the Silver Age and Defenders and Nightstalkers started and then some time during his affiliation with the Nightstalkers he quit as sorceror supreme. With my reorganization plan, the stuff from Vol. 3 #50 could be moved more appropriately to a section called "Vol. 3" (or whatever). Then after that, the relatively unimportant stuff from "House of M" to "Dark Reign" could be in a section called "Role in major storylines and crossovers." Then we could also include stuff that's happened in periods other than the last five years like Secret Wars II or Reign of Blood/Reign of Darkness (Marvel doesn't really have a wide variety of titles, do they?) and the Infinity Trilogy. The only Infinity Trilogy stuff currently on the page is in the very snarky pov "deus ex machina" section. I'm the last one to say that snarky pov is bad, but it's kind of sad that a section like that has a larger volume of information from the 70's-90's than anywhere else on the page. If you have alternative suggestions, please let me know. I admit "Vol. 1" etc. is not a great name for a section, so please give me a better idea. Regardless, I think the page needs a major organizational overhaul and much better representation for the major missing middle period (the Stan Lee alliteration there was entirely inadvertant).F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record—Vol. 2, Strange's half-of-each-comic run in a 19-issue revival of Strange Tales, and Vol. 3 were all one continuous series. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See, that's my point: I obviously don't know everything. But I'm willing to learn, and I think we should put some effort into making the Strange Tales through Vol 3 stuff a bigger part of this page. Since I'm prone to bone head mistakes, I need help from the rest of you. With your concent, I'll reorganize and I'll get started with beefing up info (I'll probably start with Vol. 3 since I have the best access to that stuff). But please help. F. Simon Grant (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been rereading the resources I have available to me (which are limited, so I need help) and I realized that separating them by Vol.# might be more of a pain in the ass than necessary, and it might potentially turn into a big mess -- for example, if we really wanted it to go perfectly in chronological order, how many times would the phrase "And Dormammu tried to invade earth again" come up? So perhaps under fictional biography there could be a section for DS's role in the politics of the Dark Dimension, and encounters with Dormammu, Umar, Clea, etc. I was also thinking about a section about encounters with the Fear Lords (wasn't that what they were called?) -- all the Nightmare, Dweller in Darkness, etc. storylines. Also, on a sidenote, that villains list really needs to be pumped up. Why is there no Silever Dagger, Urthona, Dweller, etc.? Anyway, give me feed back so I can go ahead and get started on that.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

reorganization

I am sorry to say this, but the reorganized version is scarcely better than the old one, if any better at all. The structure of the article is too vague and confusing, and the new contributions feature various errors and broken links, as well as replacing great deals of former information with less organized new ones. I cannot understand how improved this article has been. I mean, all right, it isnt perfect, of course, in the old one, but erasing so much and calling sections "really horrible" with no proper or formal explanations...I dont really understand. I mean, no one's had that much of a problem with the article for months...I know you're trying to help, but please do it in a more clear manner. I, too, wish only for the article to be better, having frequently updated it and corrected many errors. Please consider my words. Aidoflight (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the length, these new reorganizations have only moved around much info, not significantly reduced it... Aidoflight (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly, this article needs a complete re-write - the first and major problem is that it treats strange as a real person, we don't write like that (we call it in-universe writing), we treat him as an object of the narrative. Secondly, we don't try and list every adventure, we provide a high-level overview. Lastly, we are considered with his impact as a character than we are with his actual adventures. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, I understand you are displeased by this "in-universe cruft" yet was my request for discussion here so invalid? Please, have good faith, and consider my words before making such major edits...I have been on Wikipedia for a long time, too, you know...I am quite familiar with Wiki guidelines...please discuss... Aidoflight (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased for your concern for the article and your need for "bluntness", but I still suggest discussion more still...please consider...it is still far from perfect, and we should really, like, talk about it... Aidoflight (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have been here for a while, where are edits like this coming from? We simply do not write like that - it goes against all of our policies, guidelines on fiction, the MOS etc etc etc. Let me repeat this - we do not write about fictional characters as if they are real, where people do that, we remove the content or we re-write it to remove the in-universe tone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, ok, I really don't understand how that is primarily in-universe, Camercn Scott. Please, even though there would be doubtless many users who mighty agree with your point of view, my edits were read and added to as well, hinting that some, at least, do not totally disapprove of them in entirety. I know this might be invalid, but you did, at least, fail to discuss it with many contributors before making the article undergo such a signifcant phase of structual change. And come on, all articles are in-universe to some degree; I dont like it much, but what about other articles in comics? have you changed them all? Is it really that much in-universe, or just somewhat excessive in pure substance? Though I truly appreciate and understand your own opinion and perspective, and I, too, recognize the necissity for improvement, I did ask you clearly to discuss it first at least. I do not wish to argue with one who wants so much to improve thsi particular article, but why can't you understand me? Your own changes are, I fear I must say, somewhat imperfect as well, and from your comments and actions, any edit I make to this revised version would also undoubtedly be quickly undone. You should have considered this long ago, Cammeron Scott: your own edits to this article are quite recent. Despite your personal disagreement with me, please note that, whatever mistakes I made, I did at least try to help improve, and I have not undone any of your changes, although I can find certain Wikipedia violations there in your own edits as well. I do ask you to discuss this more, at least, and take the time, like I have done, to speak more of valid ways we can together improve this article... Look, I'm sorry if I'm really miffing you off, but, like, the whole article has been restructure without many discussions here. Please respond as soon as possible. Aidoflight (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For example...

Doctor Strange is also a key character in the House of M storyline where his intervention is used as plot device to explain why some characters are not affected by the spell cast by the Scarlet Witch that robs most mutants of their abilities. That is all that is left of my own edits, and you rewrote it as you saw fit. Though of course excessive information is to be discouraged, I would like it at least a bit more in-depth than that, for the Wikipedian reader to glean more information about an important portion of this comic character's biography.

Consider this: The War of the Seven Spheres was after the Defenders, but to the casual reader, the article structure might possibly make it seem as if it was before. I mean, honestly, the edit before, though obviously imperfect, still wasn't doing all that bad, and though maybe a bit long and lacking citations in some places, did not necessarily merit an entire over-do...

Also...

Strange has been a member, leader, mentor, and/or advisor for many groups in the Marvel Universe. Though this describes Strange well, it appears still somewhat poor and lacking proper structure and information.

Group affiliations Witches After Andy Kale opens the powerful Book of Shadows, the Tome of Zhered-na, releasing an evil monster, Strange gathers a group of female magicians, the ’’Witches’’, to stop the monster. The group includes Topaz, Satana, and Andy’s sister Jennifer Kale.

Arguably, at least, this is quite insignifcant as it appeared in only one issue, not an entire storyline or crossover, yet you also deemed it fit for a new mini-section of its own, as well as erasing nearly half of my own edits.

Also the new Salome section becoming Sorcerer Supreme in Strange's stead, that could probably confuse the reader, who might believe it to mean the Dark Reign crossover. Please fix this yourself, as it appears my own edits are too flawed to be considered by so many users...

And even if your doing is to be praised, at least try to focus more for now on fixing the broken links, correcting errors or citing sources than undoign everything I try, for much of it comes from your recent edits (for example the new edit Morgana Blessing is a broken link)

I really do not wish to criticize your actions much, for many of your said points are perfectly legitimate, yet the Talk Page was designed for criticism and discussion. I know maybe this isnt supposed to be said here, but I personally thought the Strange article looked slightly better before...more clear and focused...

Again, I promise not to undo your own edits before this issue is resolved. Aidoflight (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't finished editing the article but I am going to bed for a few hours. My arrival here is not by chance, you really need to read this which is the concern of a number of editors about your recent edits. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you all think I'm wrong, I should really get banned for pissing you off, great. Just tip me off on my Talk page next time, 'kay? Ty. Aidoflight (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, per Aidoflight's request, I'm looking over the edit challenges discussed here. I will say that the edits Cameron Scott linked to are indeed written in excessive detail and in more of a narrative style than appropriate for this article. However, Aidoflight is correct that recent fictional character biography edits as they are now are too lacking in information. The sections should be written succinctly highlighting notable character developments while sufficiently explaining the events in an understandable way.

For example, I have no idea who Salome is and what it means that Strange has been infected with "Salome's Disease." I also don't see the purpose of the recited enchantment and why it's all written out in that section. Additionally, I find the division of the fictional biography and the "role in crossovers" questionable. The character biography should serve as a chronological summary of notable events, which would include important roles in Strange's history such as being integral to the resolution in House of M, his involvement in the Illuminati, which had very long-reaching effects in the Marvel continuity. Other events such as his role in Civil War were generally minimal and can be written as such. There are ways to write these that treat Strange as an object of narrative without leaving chronological formatting as messed up as it appears to be now.

What I will agree with is that clearly this page needs severe amounts of reformatting, but the current one is far too brief (and possibly tinged with in-universe style) and too vague for general readers given Strange's long character involvement int he Marvel franchise and in various titles. As well, some of the suggested edits that were reverted are far too detailed and conflict with in-universe style, acting as a play-by-play narrative of events in the comics.Luminum (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of that - I might look in the history and see if there is an older more useful base version to work from. Otherwise I'll spend a couple of hours on it at some stage today try to remove the various problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a clean-up but there are two major problems - there is a gap in both the publication history and the fictional history from about the early 1990s to the early 2000s, I've never read those comics so simply have no idea what happened (post 2000 I'm fine).

The article still needs a lot of work but it needs more hands and I'm going to see if anyone at the problem has some time to help out. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the gap in the fictional section is here

He destroys Stevens and sends Strange to the Dark Dimension where he bonds with one of Clea’s fellow rebels, Nobel, and becomes Paradox. After Doctor Strange finally defeats Salomé, he takes on a new, younger appearance.

TEN YEARS OF COMICS NOBODY HAS WRITTEN ABOUT.

Because of his use of dark magic during the Civil War, World War Hulk and Secret Invasion events Strange falls from grace and loses his position as Sorcerer Supreme. He is currently wandering the earth looking for his successor. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott complained about the "Fictional character biography" section being too "in-universe." Given that we have a section "Publication history" as well as that one (and this is typical across the encyclopedia with comic book characters who have run more-or-less off and on for extended periods of time, so saying we shouldn't have both would open a whole 'nother can of worms), and the dictionary definitions of the words in the phrase, what is the FCB supposed to be if not essentially in-universe? What else can it be? Before that section has been reached, the article has irrefutably established that we are dealing with a fictional character. --Ted Watson (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically it always has to treat the character as an object of the narrative not as if they exist - see Captain Marvel for example and also this recent discussion. My own own personal preference is not to have a FCB at all simply because most of them are awful but that's not how we seem to be agreeing to do things for the moment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Two problems. First, your Captain Marvel link goes to a disambiguation page and therefore demonstrates nothing; which article/version did you have in mind? Second, your other (BTW, why did you make it in external link fashion? Here it is) takes me to a discussion that simply and utterly fails to make an argument convincing me that your position is valid, the final posting there notwithstanding. Everybody there seems to be on the same side, no real discussion of the opposite position. Worse, when you cite a Spider-Man article as being horrible as it currently is but having the clear potential for being turned into a FCB without the in-universe tone, Boz self-contradictorily replies, "Totally agreed! :) It's basically that already...." My guess is that he feels that having the issues, etc., cited within the text instead of as footnotes makes the difference, but it doesn't really; there's plenty of in-universe tone between those cites. While I certainly agree that a storyline-by-storyline description of a character's existence is not a good idea here, having an overview of the major events in his "life" is notable and definitely relevant to an article, and a degree of in-universe tone is unavoidable in one. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe your passive aggressive tone serves you well with other editors? It doesn't serve you well with me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about (it is, after all, impossible to be passive and aggressive at the same time), and see nothing the least bit out of line with my posting. Yours is unjustified, and seems to me to be nothing but avoiding dealing with my objections to your position and my pointing out the technical shortcomings (but not technicalities) of your previous post, which is a lack of good faith discussion on your part. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I don't see anything passive aggressive about this post. Ted Watson brings up good points that would be good to consider. Additionally, simply reverting Aidoflight's edits is very unproductive as you really don't challenge them in talk or give a clear explanation. Reviewing [3], I don't see the reason for reverting the sections highlighting the major events and usage of the character throughout the different established comic book eras. The section involving Nightstalkers and onward describes Strange based on the ramifications of his actions throughout the changing themes int he Marvel industry (Strange's "actions" coincide with Marvel eliminating "vampires" in the titles as well as introducing a new Marvel publication--"Nightstalkers.") As an example, this line appears to be a good example of how the character biography should be written, "His position restored shortly afterward, Strange, by the mid-2000s, serves chiefly as a supporting character to whom Marvel superheroes might turn for matters concerning magic and the supernatural." Important and notable aspects of the characters comic history can then be written around that to provide context.

(Thank you. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I also note that some of the reverted edits are warranted, such as the excessive detail on the Annihilation war or his involvement with the appearance of the Sentry, but it would be more constructive to manipulate those edits into a more appropriate form rather than outright deleting them. If Aidoflight did as much research as he or she claims, then it's rather disparaging since these efforts can be constructively used in some way and have an appropriate place. So please be more selective with what you choose to edit and please use this talk page, because the edit summary used is insufficient for the reverting you did.Luminum (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you have valid points, yet I must ask that you both try to keep good faith. I mean, come on, all of you were like attacking me a day ago for my "horrible" edits. Though you indeed may seek to improve the article, I still must again voice my concern that the current version, despite your own view of its excellent points, is still really not that great (if at all) than my own previous versions. I know this is a rather poor or at least irrelevant point, but many users were able to at least somewhat clearly read the article and deem my own edits passable and worthy of updating. For example, when I added to Strange's artifacts, the user Rkilarski made a New Separate Section for Artifacts, adding on to my own edits and though this user tried to discuss it on this talk page, no one, not even you responded. Now the artifacts section has been seriously mowed down, and you will see to it, doubtless, that my own edits to it are never to be. Now, I may be entirely wrong, but on a side note, Cammeron Scott, I think you really have come a bit close to implying that you really could not give a crap about my own edits and they are basically, worthless. You revamped the whole article without discussion, and when you first did so, it really didn't look all that hot, no offense. I attempted to merge my own edits with your own updates, but within minutes you undid everything I tried to change with rather unclear comments concerning "in-universe cruft." I mean at least try to take into consideration that I have refrained from editing on the article myself for the past days in an attempt to more quickly resolve the issue. And as I have said before, most articles have to be in-universe to some degree to sufficiently describe the characters. It seemed clear at least to me when I first visited the Dr. Strange article, and I fear your own edits have really failed to address many of my said issues. Try to compare the Strange article with other Marvel ones on Wikipedia, and perhaps we can discuss this further. Also, please take into consideration that we are all equal human beings here, please do not be overly "blunt" or so frequently claim such debatable things of other users; please keep in mind that though Wikipedia is certainly not censored, it is also to be minded that there should be nothing pertaining to or bordering upon personal attacks or violation of good faith for others. A last comment, your short reply of I haven't finished editing the article but I am going to bed for a few hours. My arrival here is not by chance, you really need to read this which is the concern of a number of editors about your recent edits was brief, and to my own eye, controversial. I mean, please, who the hell here cares about whether you go to bed or edit some more? This is supposed to be about the Strange article; despite that issue irrelevant, you have still yet to address me directly over it, instead stating my personal debatable actions here. Please consider further discussion. My best wishes, in hope such a tiring argument shall soon cease, Aidoflight (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: now's a few hours from when I last edited here, and still no response from Cameron Scott...please discuss, my friend, as soon as you deem it worthy of your attention... Aidoflight (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm done for the moment - here's a suggestion - Spider-Man was recently rated as a good article - can we agree that format might be successful here and as there, we can chuck off things like an expanded recounting of individual story histories, powers and abilities and your restored extensive edits here more than likely would form the basis of those sub-articles (obviously with summaries here)? With the eventual goal that the main article is a tight article which everything else branches off?

If you are happy with that - would you consider looking at the current multiple sub-articles that exist for the various artifices and magic weapons that Strange uses and advising us if it makes more sense for those to be merged into a single sub-article (like the spider-man weapons and powers are)? How does that sound as a way forward? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have spent too much voicing arguments everywhere, and I really am growing weary of this endless arguement with so few people intervening, I shall only say this: Ask for other voices, as many as possible. Despite my disagreement, I offer my best wishes for the improvement of the article, which ever way you seem to deem most fit. Aidoflight (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

However, after reading your own arguements more in depth, I will admit it is possible that that could be considered a fairly acceptable compromise, though the article remained thus as it was for many years under the eyes of users with far greater experience than you or I. One last request, if you are willing to hear: can you skim over my recent arguements on the WikiProject Comic page one more time, and make your final decision? A last note would be that while you are changing the structure of this article, I do nothing. Again, good luck on everything you do, Cammeron, for I know you are a workman, like I am, and seek to only improve that which you work upon. Best wishes, your friend, Aidoflight (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we use this version (which is the version before I became involved) for the process of chunking off - so the content in those sections is chunked off into the separate articles (let's decide here first what they are?). So the new version remains here but your content from that version forms the basis of the more detailed sub-articles? How does that sound? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to that - can I suggest we start with an artefacts using your edits as the core of the article and seeing if any of the existing articles about them can be merged into that new article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your new ideas are to my liking, Cameron. if you need my advice or help, please contact me. I really appreciate all you are doing for this one article, you know...I'm sorry if I've given you a hard time...but I really was trying to improve it as well... Aidoflight (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - you are now our resident expert on artifacts. Can you have a look at the existing sub-articles and see if they duplicate much of your content? I'm wondering if they can all be part of one article or is there too much content? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into detail addressing every bit of drama brought up, but since a request was made for more voices I will respond. :) I'll say that Cameron is absolutely right about one thing; the coverage of Doctor Strange's history is very seriously unbalanced. Before he got to cutting, It looked to me that about 60% of the history described the five most recent years of storylines, 30% of the history described the first 20 years or so of storylines, and the remaining 10% covered the years in between (these are estimates; I'm sure that's not at all accurate). The 2004-2009 storylines were indeed very seriously overdetailed, so how would we balance it; adding a few dozen paragraphs to make the earlier parts of the history just as heavily detailed? No, I'd say not! A too-long article is very difficult to manage. I do agree that Cameron probably did cut too much, though, and am glad to see he is willing to discuss that further. As I say, he is absolutely right about increasing the coverage of the 1980s/1990s era (those years feel largely glossed-over in the article at present), and he points out some specific stories that should get more coverage. Strange has had no fewer than three solo titles, not counting mini-serieses, and he's been a major member of teams such as the Defenders and New Avengers, so all of that should be given its due weight. Five years of stories are important, but they are not necessarily more deserving of coverage than the 20 years or so preceeding them. I think the key to improving this article is in better balancing the coverage. (Yes, there's more to improving the article than that, but that's a critical part.) BOZ (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the time you give for voicing your own thoughts and concerns is indeed held by much gratitude and appreciation on my own part, and though I certainly understand Cameron's own arguments for his actions much better by now, I must also say that the information itself has somewhat degraded in depth, and perhaps even accuracy. For example:

Because of his use of dark magic during the Civil War, World War Hulk and Secret Invasion events Strange falls from grace and loses his position as Sorcerer Supreme. He is currently wandering the earth looking for his successor.New Avengers #53 (April. 2008)

Yes, it truly is a fine summary of the past decade of Strange publications, but think on this: I only edited thus because I thought the article needed it (Look back about a year, you'll see how lacking in update it was) and I thought it was needed for improved, if not perfect, quality. Also, Strange unlike the Avengers or Iron Man or Daredevil or Castle, doesn't have his own comic book anymore, thus prompting me to stress his participation in recent events much. I mean, for instance, I only wrote so much of the Invasion because I thought it would make up for his absence during the main events (he was not seen during the Skrull Invasion) and readers would understand his recent years more clearly.

Yes, the above new edited sentence is admirable in certain ways, yet most any website could feature that, and perhaps ten times more detail. Basically, shortening down my own edits so signicantly would make coming to the new, revised Strange article almost pointless as even the average Marvel reader would already possess knowledge of him using dark magic and leaving the Avengers. I know maybe the quotes were not perfect, yet I mirrored the quotes I had found on other Marvel Comics pages, and I thought providing the article with it would appeal more to the average Wikipedian reader of such an article than such a short summary. I thought Wikipedia's goal was to garner as much up-to-date information and data as possible, even if structuring it to a manageable level. Consider my point of accuracy: I did not state in my edits Strange's use of dark magic came from the Civil War, yet it clearly reads thus. Also a lone citation for so many years of information is also of controversy, to mine own opinion (New Avengers #53). I mean, come on, Strange is still a pretty major and popular character of Marvel's, and even if the page is permanently reshaped, you would also have to work on reshaping the other Marvel pages; for example, merging all of Iron Man's recent activities into one short sentence, or major-editing the Iron Man's armor page, which really is pretty long.

Again, I appreciate everything you have done, especially you, Cameron, but also understand that I really want to help fix the Strange article as well: remember, whatever flaws my edits had, without my edits for the past months on Marvel articles, it would indeed be missing a great portion indeed, without updates, without correction and analysis. I truly hope you can sort what is suitable for me to do now, for I just want to help revamp the article, yet in a way agreeable to us all. My thanks for your time, Aidoflight (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have included an Artifacts section on the Talk Page for now, concerning your suggestion, and as the user talk many months ago did for Sorcerous phrases to preserve a copy here just for reference even though it was agreed to have been removed from the article itself. Thanks, Aidoflight (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to note that I really do want to offer my own services to improve the Marvel section of Wikipedia, and I have carefully read each of your own former complaints against me and will take even greater care to avoid such mistakes in the future. I really do know quite a lot about a variety of subjects in comic continuity, and though we are still unfamiliar, the WikiProject for Marvel Comics could use a few new hands, for, though you have done well in contributing, there are still points to be addressed and elements to be improved upon within the articles. Thank you, my friends. Aidoflight (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I want to spark another neurotical hissy fit -- and I had planned to help improve this page, but it seems like a rather obnoxious proposition now -- but I'd like to point everyone to my suggestions above. The biggest problem, as has been reiterated, is the missing twenty or so years. Cameron Scott -- who admits to only being up to snuff on the last few years, which is obvious -- puts in bold and capital the missing ten years from Strangers Among Us to House of M, or whatever, and I quote: TEN YEARS OF COMICS NOBODY HAS WRITTEN ABOUT. Let me point out that in those ten years, Dr. Strange wasn't doing much -- he finished up Vol. 3 in about twenty more issues, had one or two miniseries that introduced very few major developments, and he showed up in some other comics. I would suggest a more significant observation is this: from the Defenders to the Nightstalkers roughly, what is missing is, in Mr. Scott's dramatic style: TWENTY YEARS OF COMICS NOBODY HAS WRITTEN ABOUT. In that twenty year gap, Dr. Strange did things much, much more significant than, say, founding the Nightstalkers or whatever. I'll suggest here, as I suggested above, that we (or rather, you) focus first on major storylines with in Dr. Strange proper. I'll argue that Strangers Among Us was a major storyline because it took up roughly two years of the comic and presented major status quo changes (that didn't stick, but whatever). The whole Shuma Gorath thing is also a major story line, and I don't think anyone would disagree. There are plenty of other major 70's, 80's, and 90's storylines missing. It doesn't have to be play-by-play, just basic summary. I argue that staying strickly chronological is an unteneble approach. I suggest instead that repetitive storylines could be handled in chunks, battles with Dormammu for example; he does that several dozen times, so why not just get all the Dormammu stuff out of the way in one section? Feel free to argue over these propositions, but remember at the end of the day just look in the mirror and tell yourself, "It's only a Wikipedia page, it's only a Wikipedia page, it's only a Wikipedia page."F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty good on the Doc until about 1985 - the 1990s are a blur for me. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, by all means, rock the 60's-80's. That's a great time period for ol' Doc -- very significant and very under-represented on the page. Another thing I forgot to respond to: the notion that the reader will see the War of the Seven Spheres at the end of the character biography section and the Defenders at the beginning of the group affiliation section and assume it's chronological implies that the reader is ridiculously stupid. Also, the notion that the reader will see that Salome took over as Sorceror Supreme for a brief time in the 90's and think it's the resolution of this Dark Reign nonsense, also implies a lack of faith in the reader. If that's a genuine issue, and I argue it isn't, give a more thorough explanation. Feel free to make it chronological -- for example, the Defenders founding coming after the death of the Ancient One, etc. -- but I say that's dicey since the Defenders is essentially concurrent with most of Doctor Strange proper. I'd say a group affiliation section is preferable to straight chronological, but that's my two cents for what it's worthF. Simon Grant (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to the Salome/Dark Reign statement, I will say only this: before, at least I, who one can argue possesses reasonable Marvel knowledge and experience with editing, at first deemed it so. If you believe that to be unreasonable, I am sorry, my friend, yet, with my apologies, I truly thought it so, before realizing my error. Thus, I was forced at first to conclude the possibility to others reaching uncertainities and misinterpretations as well. Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Grant; I am pleased so many have expressed such deep concern for this article. (I am truly sorry if you feel my notions are "ridiculously stupid" and that there is "a lack of faith in the reader"; however, I feel that such comments lack good faith in themselves. Though there are obviously disagreements of the article, it is generally agreed that civility should be maintained. Though I dislike stating it thus, I will reply this to your comments of ridiculous stupidity: I at least have always signed in to Talk pages with no broken links to my own User page) My best wishes, Aidoflight (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been rewritten, with all information sourced and placed in the correct order. Appropriate images that suit the narrative also in use. Had to cull a lot of speculation and off-track comments, but now looks up to scratch. Narrative designed to be informative but not overwhelming. Comments welcome. Asgardian (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

J Greb has advised that there are some errors. If these can be pointed out, I will be happy to address them. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is one thing I must ask about. Alongside the "Publication history" section, right about where the sub-sections "Strange Tales" and "Other titles" meet, there is an image captioned, "Doctor Strange debuts on the cover of Strange Tales #110 (July 1963). Art by Steve Ditko." That is indeed what the image appears to be, but it isn't. Stephen did not appear on the cover of ST #110, but the Human Torch did. The image seems to be lifted from the splash panel of Strange's story in that issue, but I won't guarantee that. As it is a phony mock-up utilizing apparently genuine Ditko art, fair use is highly doubtful. In any event, the caption is rubbish. As soon as I've posted this, I'll put a similar message on the image's talk page, with a URL to a scan of the real thing. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

yup... definite problems there... since the Grand Comics Database Project and Comic Book DB both have the same original cover - GCDP CBDB and the URL link points to a "collage" artist's homepage with no immediate link to the cover. - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I clicked to this just the other day, as I remember some hokey villain like Paste Pot Pete actually being on the cover. No matter, it can easily be changed. Asgardian (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

World War Hulk

Defending my edits - In World War Hulk #3, Strange enters Hulk's mind. The discussion with Banner AND the hand crushing are all "in mind events." Just in case there was any confusion, Strange says to Hulk "This is the inside of YOUR mind." The hand crushing "crossed over" into the physical world, but it was done inside the Hulk's mind. The summary before made it sound like Strange got the Hulk to revert back to Banner in the real world. Rabidwolfe 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He did revert to his banner form in the real world, his mind was unaffected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.194.84 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage to Clea

Dr. Strange and Clea exchanged mystic rings in a special ceremony once. Clea has since referred to this as a type of marriage (most notably in The Order mini-series). So it is okay to say they are married (even if their idea of marriage is a bit non-traditional). I see no reason to change her status from "Wife" to "Lover" when they consider themselves married (after a fashion).Rabidwolfe 00:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition to the above. Besides the references in The Order, and the 1990s Comic series, Marvel's website says Clea is "wife, estranged" http://www.marvel.com/universe/Doctor_Strange_(Stephen_Strange) So do the Marvel Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and other reference works published by Marvel. Rabidwolfe 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Dr. Strange The Oath miniseries is considered canon? The last frame shows him kissing the Night Nurse, so either he and Clea are estranged or they have a more open relationship (given that these are immortals operating on a cosmic scale, I vote the latter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkilarski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Illuminati miniseries I believe Dr. Strange mentions Clea leaving him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.26.171 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I doubt a single person will actually respond to this, but whatever. Those lists are completely useless garbage dumps, so they don't need to exist. TTN (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The response you are getting suggests that people disagree but whatever. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What response? All I got was a generic comment used to force discussion for no specific reason. Now if you had been the one to revert with something like "I believe the splits are appropriate, please discuss", that would have been more appropriate than leaving "Propose 1st" and not even bothering to comment on the merge. That happens to be one of the most annoying thing someone can do on this site, especially when it's over two minor sub-articles (with less than one hundred combined edits) that are full of cruft being merged into an article that can easily handle it. TTN (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's a fairly good reason, when stated. IIRC, the two got split off when the article had a much higher file size. I'm a little surprised that those that weeded the article didn't fold those back in. That being said, suggesting the merge is a way of prodding the "Shall we finish up, or is there a reason these were left out?" - J Greb (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"useless garbage dumps" I would encourage civility be minded in the discussion. Regarding the pages, the media and alternate were split due to size considerations of the main page, which is par the course for the manual of style. I see no reason to merge currently. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

The only question I'd have with the file size issue is,does it still exist? Looking at TTN's first run at it, the size was ~32k, the split line is generally when an article nears or exceeds 50k. Is it possible to bring the sections back here, even a full port, and stay at a reasonable size? Also, wouldn't this have a potentially positive effect on keeping the plot bloat down? - J Greb (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think User:J Greb, brings up some good points. I'd hate to simply say "I like the way the article is right now ..." but I feel Alt versions and media can quickly become eye sores, and tend to be most prone to the plotification. I would point to this merge is of a different breed than the other two, and may be a benificial discussion regarding precidence in the ebb/flow, shrink/grow of the fictional character pages. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

I was actually thinking of the comic book plot. If the AV and IOM sections are there, and it's clear are intended to stay there, there's a degree of impetus to go easy on over doing the comic book plot inclusion.

And there is also a fair argument for a degree of plot inclusion in at least the IOM - the articles for the specific episodes, series, and/or films tend to have plot and character use minimized. Having that information somewhere isn't necessarily a bad thing. - J Greb (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• The prose on this page is currently 11k, including html it is 22k. At the Superman FARC I was guided that prose size should optimally be 35 - 40 KB. I can't therefore see why they were split, especially since adding back the prose wouldn't over-run this page. I support this merge. Hiding T 11:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I endorse a merger per reasons stated by TTN and Hiding above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment They article has been stripped down from its high point of 48k a month ago [4], however, it feels distinctly bare bones and there are things removed that I'd argue should be reworked and put back in. What I'd like to avoid is the situation where this gets rounded out and we need to look at splitting the article again (I could certianly see the article as it stands growing to 30-35k without the merge, which would certainly spark another debate). I think we should probably put the merge off and come back in 6 months to a year and see where the article stands as it seems unwise to discuss merging at the articles slimmest point in years. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

I think that the lists would work better merged into the main page, but it depends on the amount of room they could get worked down to. The P&A section is a little thin and unimpressive considering that Strange arguably displayed abilities above certain cosmic entities back in the former "sorcerer supreme" days. I'll make an attempt to improve in as brief terms as possible, but if someone wants to help with improving the structure of the contents that would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

whoa, no offense here or nuthing, but, yo, if [[Deadpool] was like this Strange guy's page, then...whoa. ah, it'll nevre happne. the merc's too friggin popular among marvelites, evben wiki 1s. just delete the stupid pg, then, yo! really, no joke. wth would read this garbage? i mean, plz, no fense, but, really...well, aint my problem. evry1 buy deadpool and his zomby head new serees! YEAH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

wow that deadpool article is a mess, thanks for bring it to our attention, we'll be sure to clean all that crap out of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

kk, go ahead, man. dont freaking care much; i just rd the comix. but u should be careful if u do dat. ty much. just friggin tell me, how u delete article. dunno waht 2 add to merc with a mouth's pg, so just flippin around random marvel pgs...this really is crazy s***, though. srry, man, but...dunno if any1 tolds u dis before, but ur kinda a...well, nuff said...bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your response is too incoherent for me to make much sense of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

real cure, mr. scott, real cute...u know, u really hafta go to a few comix forums, and den youll no,...real marvelites dont rd any magic s***, just deadpool and maybe xmen; (aemma's way bhotter than pathetic lil jean, yo). i mean, magic is like fairy tales...real men dont read it...well, maybe nuthing this gotta do wit dr. s, but dat deadpool comment, yo. Hard-core, man, in a weird way... cameron, wth u hate deadpool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Doctor Strange in other media should be merged into Doctor Strange. Meatwod

delete

maybe we should delete pgs like dr's, kk? i mean, deadpool's awsome, but strange...cmon...deadpool aint a good guy OR bad dude, just a totally neutral chrter. DEADPOOL IS AWSOME TECH, 4-WALL BREAKIN MAN NINJA! YEA! i mean, plz, dont do anythin to deadpool, mr, scott. just...dont. plz??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Watoomb

One of his exclamations currently reads "By the Wondrous Winds of Watoomb!" I'll look this up, but does anyone know offhand whether this isn't supposed to be the Wand of Watoomb? -- Tenebrae 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are correct. "Watoomb" is the God of winds, his winds are used as either a supernatural transportation device or an attack. The Wand of Watoomb is a talisman that is used by lesser mages in which to gain access to Watoomb's power over wind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.82.148.21 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks! --Tenebrae 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could Watoomb be a corruption of Bah-toom, Bah-toom, Bah-toom found in some of the lyrics to Dr. John's 1960s song, "I Walk on Gilded Splinters"? It might actually mean something in Cajun French.216.99.201.79 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Speculation. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Early 70s return

Asgardian: Noticing quite recently that a statement that Dr. Strange's return to activity in the early 1970s after the cancellation of his original series in 1969 occurred with a solo story in the back of Marvel Feature #1 had been removed, I restored it. Shortly afterwards and with no comment whatsoever, you took it out. The only justification I can see for that would be the mistaken belief on your part that there is nothing in that issue but the cover-featured Defenders story. This, however, is patently untrue, the description is completely accurate and the comic issue itself is a citable source (I have a formal third-party opinion to that effect which I can link in if you don't believe me). The fact that Strange's second career, so to speak, began with a story of his own is definitely notable. Therefore, I'm putting it back in with a link in my edit summary to here. If you take it back out, you'd better make a good case for it here, or I'll send for a TPO. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked it out, and since it is in fact valid, it can stay. Rewritten as grammar not too good. Also, please don't threaten. It is uncivil and kills your credibility. Asgardian (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At 11:31 August 23, anonymous IP 86.158.55.114 restored my original phrasing. Perhaps like me until your statement here made me take a second look, he/she failed to note that my concept was still there. Please note before using the "Undo" button that he's done a few other things, restoring parentheses around volume numbers and adding a passage—with cite—about a dimension in Strange's cell structure.

I will admit that I didn't feel too good about my exact phrasing, and your version is quite an improvement. Thanks.

As for my "threat," on the somewhat related article Dormammu, you have a history of (seemingly) being highly resistant to backing down from a position you've committed yourself to. Obviously, I've misjudged you; sorry. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Two other collections

There are two books missing from the "Collections" sub-section of the bibliography. In the late 1970s Pocket Books put out several mass market paperbacks of Marvel Comics reprints, including two of Doctor Strange. Between them they covered the entire Steve Ditko era except for one story, "To Catch a Magician" (unless you count the appearance in an early Spider-Man annual; not here). On the back cover of each is a statement of original publication. The first volume acknowledges that very early gap found, for example, in the listing for Essential... Vol. 1, but indicates one continuous string in their second volume. When "...Magician" was reprinted in Giant-Size Defenders #1 just a few years earlier, the "reprinted from" cite at the bottom of the splash page gave a Strange Tales issue number one higher than the end of the run subsequently listed on the back of Pocket Books' second Strange volume. Not too long after those came out, the Marvel Comics Indexes began to be released, and when they reached "Heroes from Strange Tales," they listed "...Magician" after "The End at Last," the final story in Pocket's collections, and the finale of a very long serial. Counting reprints, I used to have a complete collection of Dr. Strange solo stories from his debut in Strange Tales #110 through his four-issue miniseries in about 1999, and reading "...Magician" after "...Last" caused no problems in comprehension or continuity or anything. Strangely (no pun intended), the Grand Comic-Book Database insists that "...Magician" was published prior to "...Last," something that judging from those reprints would be darned near (if not truly) impossible to make work in the context. So unless someone here wants to check his own collection and contradict the person at the GCD who claimed that he "checked the issue" singular, even though I had pointed out a problem with TWO issues plural, and confirm that "The End at Last" was in fact published prior to "To Catch a Magician," I don't know what you would want to list for the content of these two volumes, but they definitely should be listed. At this point, Amazon.com has a listing for only Vol. 2, with minimal details here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

SHB Image

I would advocate for a new image, since Strange in the Deodato image currently there is small, with hard-to-make-out details and an immense amount of visual clutter. SHB image guidelines specify a large, clear, preferably full-on image with minimal if any background elements. On a separate note, we might consider an image by Ditko, Colan or Brunner, three of Strange's most prominent, signature artists. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with this, as there is usually something out there that is always better. So long it isn't that poor torso shot that was replaced, no problem. Asgardian (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a month, so if there are no further comments, I'll find a new image. It will not be a torso shot, but a full image. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)