Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Strange/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Powers listing?

I found this forum thread a while back, and given the sheer vastness and versatility of the power displays (Reversing time across a planet; Defeating the In-Betweener without assistance; Taking control over and sealing a Black Hole; Blowing up planets; Shrinks to the size of an atom; Bestowment of superhuman physical powers; Durability sufficient to withstand blows from the Juggernaut; Described as powerful enough to "shake a universe"; Merging with Eternity through apparenly growing to universal size; repelling Death; evading The Vishanti, The Trinity of Ashes, The Octessence, and The Seraphim; Emitting force-blasts as powerful as supernovas; Raising the dead; Stealing powers; etc).

Or perhaps more significantly being described by Eternity as "A master of the mystic arts, more powerful by far than any of your fellow humanoids. And so your presence has begun to disturb the multiversal balance. Your power threatens its very existence." Rebuilding the Marvel Universe and being narrator described as the "Mightiest magician in the cosmos" at the end of the "Avengers/Defenders War"; Or by the Beyonder as "far more, far greater than any in your multiverse suspect" and to have him at an initial disadvantage, due to being careless; And even briefly holding his own against the Infinity Gauntlet through aid from his entire arsenal of parabelia. And that's just for a start. I think that some of them should be included for illustration. The current sections seems very lacklustre compared to the sometimes universal and possibly multiversal scale the Doctor has displayed. The problem being that there are no issue references given, simply images. If anyone remembers and could help to find the issue numbers in question, this would be appreciated, and serve as a basis for a better section. (Avoid reading any entry texts though, and focus on the images only. The participants... don't seem like very nice people) Dave (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that I added a few that I could find the issue numbers for. That might be enough, but I think there were a couple of even more impressive displays, such as creating pocket universes or destroying and recreating a universe without assistance. Dave (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, regarding the addition of the Evil Eye...it is something of a fallacy to insert this as Strange has never been shown to be able to rest the entirety of reality without it; and there is no way of knowing how much the object helped (which is probably a great deal). Also, there are no other mentions anywhere else on character pages of what they can do with such and such a device, as this information is best reserved for said object's page. Adam Warlock doesn't get a mention in his P & A about what he did with the Infinity Gauntlet - the feats of the object go on the page for that item. Cause and effect.
Also, the In-Betweener can, and will, get a mention in the reworked article (I need to separate PH & B). We also don't list who "such and such" beat in the P & A as we are using fictional constructs and then making subjective judgements about them and trying to assert an erroneous set of power ratings. As comic characters, they are fictional. Trying to subjectively argue who is more powerful than whom is like arguing the merits of a numeral multiplied by zero. The result will always be zero, no matter how large the number.
By the by, please avoid making emotive suggestions in Edit Summaries. There is no "harassment". I am just resolving discrepanices.
Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It certainly feels like harrassment after a few hundred times, no matter the number of "thank you". It's very very tiresome to put up with all the time when I'm just going here in an attempt to relax.
In any case, as long as the Evil Eye is mentioned, which it is, I don't see the problem with it, and just when Strange restored the universe the narrator called him the most powerful magician in the cosmos, and the Eye is "only" powered by Balor, one of the Celtish Fomor. Hardly a cosmic cube or above. Also, as seen in the linked thread, Strange has had a couple of occasions when he's displayed the power to destroy or recreate universes all by his lonesome, and add the "All Access" (recreating the Amalgam universe) and "1612" (recreating the 1612 universe) minis to these, if I don't misremember, so it is in context, hardly a fluke instance. With his entire mystic arsenal Strange even held his own against the Infinity Gauntlet when it had limited itself to power gem only or didn't use the reality one or somesuch. If you dislike this particular instance, please browse through the thread and see if you remember or can fin some other issue numbers for the times Strange displayed universal scale unaided.
Also, until you do mention defeating the In-Betweener in the page (who btw should probably be included among Strange's listed foes) you should keep him around. You may dislike any mortal taking down cosmic entities (but apparently not mystic ones for some reason, even in the cases these are stronger), but I find them as useful gauges. In any case feel free to remove it once done.
In addition, Eternity stating Strange as a potential multiversal threat as an acknowledgement of the times he has in fact displayed universal power or went up against entities of similar extent such as Dormammu and Shuma-Gorath, has nothing to do with this, and should be kept.
Speaking of which, Dormammu is just as or more powerful as/than the Vishanti, and isn't a demon, so until we get a "mystic entities" category, I think that he should be included in the "cosmic entities" category, just like they are. Dave (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now deleted the In-Betweener reference in an attempt to be mediating, and to apparently have it be mentioned in the bio text instead. Dave (talk)
OK: the "narrator" comment is invalid because it is the narrator - the writer making a subjective comment to the reader. Many of these out of universe comments that broke the fourth wall also smacked of hyperbole, and were mixed (as seen here) by silly comments such as "Tiger...". Such things are best left alone. Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The Marvel/DC crossover and the 1602 story are also not canon. Sorry. Asgardian (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but they very much are canon. The 1602 was a time-disturbance that the "real" Doctor Strange shunted into its own universe ("if I don't misremember" disclaimer, since it does happen on occasion), whereas the Access crossover was simply built on that everyone forgets it, and validated in Marvel continuity when The Living Tribunal was shown as the one controlling the "brother" (company) entities in an alterniverse X-Men book (but there is only one Living Tribunal in the Marvel Multiverse and editorial stated it to be the "real" one, as an official but unintrusive statement). The narrator makes just as valid in-story statement as anything else. It is the end-all be all until contradicted so to speak, and everything a writer produces is biased, whether it is expressed through the characters or through the narration. You've certainly kept the one about Galactus being the "most awesome entity in the cosmos". However, I wouldn't have included it unless it wasn't a common description of Doctor Strange, and indeed his entire title "sorcerer Supreme". That's what it means. Ditto to the universal scale feats btw. Going by the images within that long thread he has displayed universal scale somewhat recurrently. This was simply the one I knew the issue for, but as I said above feel very free to skim it for other examples if you'd prefer. Eternity describing Strange as a potential multiversal threat is entirely in context with his other feats and should also be kept. Dave (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Dave, I'm sorry, but all the points stand. You really need to think this through. A narrator (ie. the writer's) casual colloquial comment in a box to the reader cannot be taken as a legitimate source for a P & A. Once again, the P & A just stated what the character can do, without inferences if at all possible.
Sorry, Marvel vs DC is not canon. The mere fact that many of the matches were decided by fans should tell you something about the validity of the story, was an exercise in popularity. 1602 isn't consider canon either, and falls into the category of a possible alternate universe where they speculate on the future of another Marvel Universe.
The comment about the ambiguous Eternity comment also stands. There's no need to try and include everything, as not everything is current (things date); are consistent or gel with Wikipedia. Asgardian (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"You really need to think this through" is dripping to overflow with your usual deliberate reverse-psychology condescending venom. As seen above I have thought this through, and repeating that phrase over and over everywhere does not logcially validate anything, it simply continues to get on my nerves as you very much intend it to. Marvel vs. DC was officially stated as part of continuity through inclusion by the Living Tribunal, and both this and the JLA/Avengers were stated as in-continuity by the handbooks/Marvel editorial, and 1602 was likevise mentioned in the handbooks. It was a time-disturbance that Doctor Strange rectified into its own separate continuity. And you have not addressed any of my other points regarding that narrator comments are something you freely allow and enforce elsewhere, with far less foundation than something that is the character in question's entire point of title and used in conjunction with just a universal scale feat; that the universal scale is also something repeated on several occasions, not just here (take a look in the linked thread yourself to find alternate references if you truly wish to "help out" as you have "offered" elsewhere); or in any way mentioned why Eternity's statement about Strange being a potential universal threat is invalid, when it is entirely in line with Strange's entire career? You have not offered any justified validation whatosever for selectively censoring these references. Dave (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Also note that Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is invalid, for all the reasons previously mentioned. Asgardian (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter if you do not like the handbook or the fan-decided matches in this case. This isn't about specific stats. It's about Marvel Comics Editorial being the ones getting to decide what's in continuity and what's not, not you personally. You keep saying "sorry but it's not in continuity" solely based on your personal opinion. And you still do not address or counter a single point of what I mention above. Dave (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(1) As I said on the Eternity page, kindly refrain from emotive sentences such as "...dripping to overflow with your usual deliberate reverse-psychology condescending venom. As seen above I have thought this through, and repeating that phrase over and over everywhere does not logcially validate anything, it simply continues to get on my nerves as you very much as you very much intend it to." This is not in good faith and is clearly uncivil.
(2) Once again, in no article do we take what is said by a writer to the reader in a caption - complete with colloquial language such as "tiger" as gospel. We just don't. Further to this, if Strange had been depcited as using his power and his alone to reset reality, then the statement could be included in the P & A. This, however, is not the case. The character used an artificial aid, and we don't know to what degree that item helped. Saying it is only powered by X is also not an argument as we don't really don't what kind of power that is. It is all speculation. Further to this, we also don't list the feats that a character accomplished with an item on their page. The Red Skull doesn't get a summary of what he could do with the Cube on his page in the P & A as that is not a natural ability or part of his normal arsenal. Nor does Warlock with reference to the Infinity Gauntlet. What is possible, however, is a mention of what Strange did at the Evil Eye article. I can do this for you. There is still, however, a mention of Eternity saying what Strange is capable of. Surely that is enough and more reliable than the other source?
(3) As to Marvel vs. Dc etc, we can continue to discuss this but again, they are not regarded as canon. The "vs." series was fan decided (not to mention now being almost universally condemned).
Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A quick shows there is no article for the Evil Eye. OK, add that to the list,. and the Strange feat will get a mention. Asgardian (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(1) And as I said there: "It has been stated repeatedly by different users that you use this and "incivility" as a shield for stating what you are doing, and as such this too only sounds deliberately insincere, and satirical of Wikipedia's regulations. However, I do agree with the principle in general, but hardly in terms of geining hundreds of consistent bad experiences that completely contradict it. I'm respectful until proven very wrong, but am extremely honest and say what I think at that point. You should know this very well by now. I recently had a period when I went gone overboard with giving you benefit of doubt, but you started to consistently disprove it again, so there isn't much to do about it." Not to mention that you yourself have called me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged" which I ignored, or repeatedly tried to use my handicaps as an often-referred to weapon (which I find annoying), so it's not like you're one to talk, and I very much believe in what I'm saying.
(2) The narrator comments are just as valid as the writer allowing Eternity or another entity to make a statement, as both are just writer opinion, subject to change, as all references are, but no less worthy of mention, and you have been willing to use it elsewhere. Feel free to remove it from Galactus othervise. Beyond this, I wouldn't have been so willing to use one if it wasn't because this is simply a clarification of what Strange's entire title says or that it has also been stated in the most recent series by Mark Waid (through some just introduced demon lord). You also do not mention or justify why you remove Eternity stating Strange to be a multiversal threat. The Evil Eye can very much be used if it is mentioned that Strange used it, which I did, and it still is only empowered by Balor. An ordinary user can only use it in the limited manner of Prestor John. Given Strange's and Dormammu's other feats of similar scale it appeared to have been used as a focus for their power. The 1985 handbook also states that it was Dormammu's own power that transformed Thor when wielding it. Stating that the Eye itself is able to wield universal scale for anyone, is to contradict all the other instances it has appeared, and also state that Balor can, whereas he's strictly been presented as a giant monster with powerful energy-blasts from his eye.
Regardless, I linked to the thread above and asked for help in finding the issue numbers for the feats shown in the images within it, to get ones wherein Strange clearly does so by himself. You still haven't helped with this however. If you are sincere in keeping this kind of reference, I could always take the time to sift through it, and link to the images in question here, but it better be worth the trouble, so I need your official word on it.
(3) Marvel's editorial department says othervise through the handbooks referring to it, and this is a case wherein even you should acknowledge that you have much less say than they do, but this is irrelevant as Strange still displays universal scale elsewhere clearly in continuity. Dave (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
All right, I went and checked through it it anyway, just to have it done with, and not go on memory alone. It did seem like it was missing out on some though. When I checked through the images I distinctly remember a mention of destroying and recreating a universe (beyond those "All Access" and 1602), so maybe that came from a similar thread or a mention within it without an image. Oh well, if anyone could help with checking it through for the most interesting power displays the help would be appreciated. Some images of possible interest for mention:
Freezing (and allegedly then reversing) time across a planet: http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2629/timerever12fl.jpg
Briefly countering the Infinity Gauntlet with the help of his full arsenal of items: http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8252/ig10bk.jpg http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6906/ig22xt.jpg http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/6042/ig39sd.jpg http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6981/ig41up.jpg http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3861/ig58iz.jpg http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5825/ig67se.jpg
Makes a star go supernova, swiftly turns it into a black hole, and most importantly seals it off: http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1828/nova4lg.jpg
Together with Gravity, channels the entire mass of the universe to cut off an infected part of Eternity into a separate pocket universe: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/EndlessMike9/Doctor%20Strange/strangeeternity1.jpg http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/EndlessMike9/Doctor%20Strange/strangeeternity2.jpg
Grows to the size of the universe to merge with Eternity: http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3565/eternity8pr.jpg
Apparently does the same with the entity Death: http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1012/death1lv4.jpg
The "mightiest magician in the cosmos" quote along with restoring the universe together with the Eye: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4320/mightsu2.jpg
Granted eternal life: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/466/deadtp2.jpg
Allegedly (in the thread) absorbs a universe: http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5120/manipulatepr2.jpg
Resurrects the dead: http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4939/witches0120nk8.jpg
Reconstitutes himself from bodily destruction: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5042/amazingspidermanv205813hk4.jpg
Stated as having a disoriented Beyonder at a disadvantage: http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2200/secretwarsii00606js1.jpg
Eternity stating Strange to be far more powerful than any other humanoid, and as a potential multiversal threat: http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9599/drstrange042wm1.jpg
Sorcerer Supreme shown as more than a title but as a specific rank and power boost: http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/9566/god0rz.jpg
Absorbs so much power that even his aura would unconsciously destroy any nearby galaxies: http://img225.imageshack.us/i/gala0gm.jpg/
Fights off the entity Death to "reconstitute Galactus": http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/2990/death48gz.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4605/death57vs.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/811/death61jw.jpg http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/6421/death73ur.jpg
Shrinking to the size of an atom: http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/1235/atom0ca.jpg
Defeats the In-Betweener: http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/3501/ib17wg.jpg http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5360/ib22ut.jpg http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6277/ib31wr.jpg
Strange returns after gathering over 7000 years of experience from the "War of the Seven Spheres": http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7364/50006sk.jpg http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/821/500014nz.jpg
Dave (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Dave, once again, please STOP starting a response with an attack and an assumption of what you think I am doing. Consider how it is going to look from an outside view. Just address the points, please.
Now, as to your examples, if you found something that is valid and not too obscure in terms of detail, then it can be included. We need, however, to save the Evil Eye reference for that article, which I can help create. Just focus on what the character can do, without any aids.
Thank you Asgardian (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, the Evil Eye of Avalon is only powered by the Fomor Balor, and even Morgaine Le Fay can whip Balor pretty handily. He is not a cosmic cube, and does not remotely have universal power. (I'd probably rate him as at best comparable to Ymir, and the handbooks made him seem rather limited.) It has long been the tool of Prestor John, a normal human who cannot use it for anything beyond (by Marvel Universe standards) "rudimentary" purposes such as force-blasts and the like. It does however seem to work as a focus for beings demonstrated as far more powerful than Balor, such as Doctor Strange and Dormammu, to use their power more efficiently. The 1985 Gruenwald handbook stated that it was Dormammu's own power that reverted Thor to Donald Blake. Strange was explicitly stated as "the mightiest magician in the cosmos" at the exact time he restored the universe, which is more than a little telling to say the least, and as shown or mentioned in this thread he has displayed similar amounts of power a couple of other times. It would be misleading to insert that an unpowered individual can use the eye to reshape the universe into its articles. Focus (similar to the Eye of Agamotto perhaps?) for powerful beings yes, but the power source itself is only Balor for anyone who doesn't have powersby themselves. Also, as it is explicitly mentioned that Doctor Strange had help from the Eye, and it is within context of his other feats, I don't see anything misleading about the sentence.
In any case I wouldn't really mind switching it to several other of the above references, but given that I don't know any of the other issue numbers it should stay until someone can provide them. Feel free to help if you wish.
In addition, I removed the mention of handily defeating the cosmic entity In-Betweener since you said that he would be mentioned in the history section, but don't see it yet.
I also find your removal of the "mightiest magician in the cosmos" quote as having very flimsy grounds. The narrator is just as valid and "all-seeing" as Eternity, as either represents the voice of the author. It also exists as a clarification of just what the "sorcerer supreme" title means, if this wasn't blatant enough, and Mark Waid's voice of the author recently said the same thing. In fact the contrast of going from the most powerful wizard in the cosmos to largely unpowered trickster is the main point of Strange's current miniseries. In addition, you allowed the "most awesome entity in the cosmos" quote for Galactus, and that was far less consistently heavily signified than this.
You also remove, rather than modify, the half of the sentence wherein Eternity describes Strange as "a threat to the "existence" of the "multiversal balance" which neatly defines his scale of power.
I am addressing the points over and over, whereas you largely avoid mine. As for the "attacks", you know full well that is not the way I think. I think of it as saying what I think and mostly lack filters in this regard. "Consider how it is going to look from an outside view." does sound sarcastic in context with your "shooting yourself in the foot" threat, i.e. something you can use, but all right "benefit of doubt" once again then, for what little it's usually worth. Although it would be easier if you actually made an effort to reword sentences, or find the most significant alternative sources to replace rather than remove the references. (And yes, "All Access" is apparently in-continuity, so recreating the Amalgam world as a pocket universe "counts", and there should be more than those above, including that "destroying and recreating a universe" that I remember seeing somewhere.) As is, your version of the article does not nearly convey the scale of Strange's demonstrated abilities. Dave (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference in Spiderman 2

Jonah's side man comes up with the name Doctor Strange for Doc Ock. I think it's a reference to this guy. Just thought to let you guys know. --92.28.96.93 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Englehart/Brunner era

While we mention this period on the talk page, there is no mention of them in the article. I have a marvel special edition #1 of Doctor Strange, comprising 4 issues, 1,2,4,5 of Doctor Strange from 1974. all covers by Brunner, written by Englehart, inks by Giordano, new cover by Wrightson. pub info: Doctor Strange/Silver Dagger vol 1 no 1 feb 83. Thats a powerhouse artistic team, which should be featured here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image of Doctor Strange needs to be replaced as it violates WikiProject guidelines stating the image needs to be a clean, clear, full-body image that depicts his costume, without undue embellishments or distracting background elements. I ask other editors to suggest alternate images, as I will do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Enemies

It's been suggested that the list of Dr. Strange's notable rogues be described briefly and related to the character. A recent series of edits simply described the individual characters. Which would best benefit its addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucardbarnivous (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Passages such as "Zom - The most powerful demon in existence, beyond even Eternity's ability to defeat alone" are pure fancruft and should not be included here at all. Both List of Batman Family adversaries and List of Spider-Man enemies are tagged for various reasons, from non-encyclopedic WP:TONE to relying solely on in-universe primary sources.
The proper way to handle this is to have a short prose section written from a real-world perspective as is done at Spider-Man#Enemies or Batman#Enemies, which give readers the encyclopedically significant basics from which they can then learn more at each adversary's own articles.
In-universe lists are for fan sites, not an encyclopedia. "Beyond even Eternity's ability to defeat alone"? Really? How is that different from "If Zom and Eternity got into a fight, who would win?" --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Recalled cover

CC of response to User:KoshVorlon:

Hi, Kosh. I'm afraid I'm not following: Wikipedia itself is free use. Clearly, I could not copy from the website RecalledComics.com. But it's perfectly permissible to use Wikipedia and in fact it's sensible in that it keeps same-topic content consistent.

I could see nowhere on the copyright-policy page anything about not using the same wording in two Wikipedia articles. I'm not entirely sure that you're correct. But might be wrong. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd be happy to investigate further before going back to Doctor Strange. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I took it not from Jackson Guice but from the entry at the Wikipedia article Recalled comics. So, again, I'm not sure it's impermissible. And if so, which of the three articles can claim it? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Kosh. I'm glad it all worked out and that we had a chance to talk it through. Thank you for going the extra mile and double-checking! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As of September 30, 2013, this article had 25 citations which were archived to either WebCitation or the Internet Archive. Now all 25 archive links are GONE! Why were these removed? Per Wikipedia:Link rot ("Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation"), I spent quite a bit of time back in March adding these links in. I certainly don't want to sound like I'm claiming ownership but archive links seem pretty uncontroversial as an addition to an article. So I'm perplexed as to their total removal. Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Eye

If I'm figuring things out correctly, someone is again suggesting merging Eye Of Agamotto here. I would disagree with this, the eye is noteable by itself. Lots42 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree to NOT merge the articles! -- Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 00:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft for Doctor Strange (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Doctor Strange at Draft:Doctor Strange (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier mention

Does no-one else think that the fact he was mentioned by name in the new Captain America movie is relevant to his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankeymarlon (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant. Should we make note of all other times Dr. Strange has received a mention in other forms of media? No; a more worthwhile film appearance should be a physical one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A brief mention is not of encyclopedic note. See WP:NOT#FANSITE or WP:INDISCRIMINATE Mtminchi08 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering the amount of world-building and teasers the Marvel Cinematic Universe is known for, I think it's worth a mention. Especially considering the fact that a Dr. Strange movie is in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.216.174 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 April 2014
DEFINITELY worth a mention. Major movie. Other such references get noted, such as names on lists in the XMen movies. But really - how worth it is it? You need only consider that you're SPENDING YOUR TIME bothering to monitor the page and direct people to this conversation (and hold this discussion at all) because many people support its inclusion. Is your opinion the most important, somehow? Does Wikipedia belong to just you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.72.189 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because other stuff exisits doesn't mean it is correct. Also, the "many" people you are referring to are mainly non-registered users, who may not understand Wikipedia policy, and are adding information because they don't see it and want it to be there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're copping out by vaguely citing "Wikipedia policy," as though there is no subjective discretion involved about what gets in and what doesn't. There are people who think it is worth including; why do you care so much about keeping one little sentence out when others, registered users or not, think it's worth it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.244.142 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Start an RFC on this page if you think it is worth a mention. 76.232.28.105 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. strange's name is mention by Jasper Sitwell in Captain America: The Winter Soldier when he list off the threats to HYDRA (He says Steven Strange).--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would think any piece of information that establishes the existence of a Marvel character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe deserves to be noted on that character's page.--Lonenut2000 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We have that. It's the news that he's getting a movie. This is just a non relevant easter egg. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is not worth mentioning then why is the reference to Killer Croc from DC comics in The Dark Knight Rises relevant?!--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That isn't either. Thank you for pointing that out. Has been removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It should only be added if there is a Doctor Strange film--Logorc Beaumont (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Many 'in other media' pages count mentions like this, this should to, especially since Kevin Feige confirmed that Doctor Strange is part of the MCU (User talk:UAVercingatorix7)19:21, 24 August 2014(UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. We should avoid trivia mentions and stick to concrete, physical appearances. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Shouldn't the character's mention by name in "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" be mentioned as a film appearance?

Shouldn't the character's mention by name in "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" be mentioned as a film appearance? 81.143.148.33 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion #Captain America: The Winter Soldier mention. It is a trivial mention; the character does not make an appearance. Allowing inclusions like this opens a can of worms for every single time a character gets mentioned to be added. Good encyclopedic content is an actual appearance by the character. So no, this should not be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like a bad idea. We can't list every single trivial mention in every form of media ever. However, if a reliable source takes note of this fact, then it could be added. That would indicate that this "appearance" is due weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate Just as an FYI, a great number of reliable sources have talked about this, but once again, only in the fact that it is an easter egg added by Marvel. Even with a source, we still get back to the crux of adding mentions over actual appearances, because that is still what it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I guess I'm fairly neutral about it, then. I'm not too keen on documenting every time a character is mentioned in the Marvel cinematic universe. That's not really an appearance, and it doesn't quite qualify for a mention in an "appearances" section. But if reliable sources are mentioning it, maybe it should be noted somewhere. I have no clue where. If this is a documented attempt to build fan excitement for a Doctor Strange film, I guess it that could be mentioned in that context. But probably not as an appearance. I haven't really paid much attention to the latest run of blockbuster superhero films, so I'm a bit out of the loop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That is the problem. It does have very notable coverage regarding it, but it does not really fit anywhere for inclusion, per what has been said above. Other "in other media" articles (ie Captain America in other media) have "references in media" sections, so maybe something like that? Because that is what it is - a reference, not an appearance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Mentions in Spider-Man 2 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I fail to see how confirmations of the character existing in the context of each film's universe are trivial. While he does not appear, he is referenced, and references of course are encyclopedic. The 'In Other Media' section is not strictly meant for appearances, but for any and all references/mentions of characters in popular media. For example, the page for the character The Punisher includes mentions and references to the character in several cartoon series, as well as mentions in Video Games such as Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2.--70.192.72.249 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been talked about and you are a minority here. Also, just because other stuff exists elsewhere does not make it correct. Mere mentions, outside of actual appearances, are just trivia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

MCU Casting

Can we not use rumors as "official" reports? Following rumors are great and fun for the fans, but until Marvel makes it official, can we please refrain from sensationalizing the information and saying "X actor has been cast to play the character"? Nothing has been confirmed. 216.70.216.70 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities

The "Powers and Abilities" section repeatedly states that he can use "magic", but the only specific effects that are mentioned is that he can fly and negate evil magic.

So what can this guy do? I haven't read the comics, so I have no idea. Can he turn invisible? Can he stop time? Can he shoot fireballs? Can he change into the form of an animal? Can he hypnotize people? Can he teleport from place to place? The word "magic" is very broad, so it would be nice to get a more specific list of abilities. Even if that list isn't exhaustive, it would be nice to know what magical abilities he uses the most often, i.e. the ones that are really essential to the character. Jim.belk (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr Strange is mentioned in Captain America Winter Soldier when Samuel Jackson's character, Nick Fury mentions technology from Bruce Banner and Dr Strange.

Dr Strange is mentioned in Captain America Winter Soldier when Samuel Jackson's character, Nick Fury mentions technology from Bruce Banner and Dr Strange.

Please see conversations regarding this farther up the talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorcerer Supreme

I noticed that sorcerer supreme redirect here to Dr. Strange. I wonder why that is? Dr. Strange is only one of the various characters that has been S.S. and I do not believe he holds that title now. I don't know much about re-directs, so I am asking here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.84.80 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If it can be determined that other use by characters has been significant, the page Sorcerer Supreme could be come a disambig page instead. Do you know of the others that have used this title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Voodoo, Merlin, The Ancient One, Agamotto have all been S.S. a list can be foundhere. I believe there is currently no S.S. in Marvel, as the last S.S. Dr. Voodoo has died. Dr. Strange is but the most common who has held the title. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.84.80 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So now the question becomes, did any of these other characters have any notability with the title? If so, then we can make the disambig page. Otherwise, I think it should just be kept as a redirect here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it. I was more interested in the concept of S.S. not who has been. Which I must admit only a few notable characters have held the title; Dr. Strange, Brother Voodoo, Merlin and The Ancient One. The rest seem to be one off stories. Anyways, I was just looking for the concept of S.S. and first searched for it here. I found it on a comic wiki, which is probably more apt. Anyways, just strange that I thought it would be here. Thank you though Favre1fan93.

collected editions

I have my own copy of The Oath. Should I post a picture of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxythunderwolf (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Strange 2016 Filming?

Hello, I'm Tammydemo and I know people have been trying to deny that those set photos of Benedict Cumberbatch filming in Nepal isn't real evidence that the movie is filming, but what about this article? http://www.theknowledgeonline.com/the-knowledge-bulletin/post/2015/10/23/doctor-strange-nearly-ready-to-shoot . It doesn't say who confirmed it exactly, but with this and the fact that in the set photos crew members are wearing Doctor Strange hats while standing next to Mr. Cumberbatch, as evidenced here. http://collider.com/benedict-cumberbatch-doctor-strange-images-marvel/ . Wouldn't that be enough to show that the movie is indeed filming? —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The information is already on the page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede cleanup

I've removed the text added in these edits for two reasons: because it is comparatively poorly written, and because it's covered in depth in the "Fictional character biography" section. Please be more encyclopedic when adding text to articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not supporting the removed version of the Lede, but my understanding of WP:LEDE and MOS:INTRO suggest that the Lede is nuttin' but a super-condensed version of the article that serves as an intro to the subject. While the added info could have been written better, maybe there is room for a little more information about the character. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I re-added it but adjusted and reworded it better. -- S talk/contribs 23:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Doctor Strange" is not an alias- it's his name

He's a doctor, and his surname is Strange. Serendipodous 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth date

His birthdate is referenced as November 18, 1930. While I do see annotations for November and 1930, where did the '18' appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.12.79 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 March 2007

Doctor Strange Template

Is there a specific reason that Doctor Strange doesn't have a menu at the bottom linking his page to all of his villains and supporting cast? Would it be all right if I worked on one? (Kang)

1978 movie

What happened to the 1978 movie?

Which actors were in it, and who directed it?

I suggest adding examples of the work of the artists next to the section describing the artists and how their styles differ.

I can't add the images myself because the action is limited to users in one of the following groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users. Is there anyone in one of those groups that can upload these images? They would definitely qualify as fair use, and I can detail my argument in full if someone's willing to help me. Here are links to the images I'm talking about:

http://66.media.tumblr.com/e1f70e9556d770be0d92eb9f444e1bde/tumblr_o030k4Qk411u3ey7co2_1280.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ualQ_K5x2Wc/VnwFczlNF4I/AAAAAAAAv6Q/_nFfN-z6OgU/s1600/ds171_12-13.jpg

If a lower resolution is required I can make it happen. I can provide issue number and page number for both.~~origonalname112~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origonalname112 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Steve Ditko created Doctor Strange NOT Stan Lee

Doctor Strange creator Steve Ditko: the reclusive 'square' who made ... www.telegraph.co.uk › Film Oct 25, 2016 - Everyone knows Stan Lee. ... Strange creator Steve Ditko: the reclusive 'square' who made Marvel weird, then disappeared. Marvel's Doctor Strange ... Lee had an idea for a new superhero, initially called Spiderman (no ... Doctor Strange Creator Steve Ditko Is the "J.D. Salinger" of Comics ... www.hollywoodreporter.com/.../doctor-strange-creator-steve-ditko-is-jd-salinger-com... Nov 4, 2016 - Stan Lee and others look at the legacy of the enigmatic artist: "He was always a ... How Doctor Strange Creator Steve Ditko Became the "J.D. Salinger" of Comics ... won't be hearing from: the person who created the Sorcerer Supreme. ... He grants no interviews, and quietly continues working on comics with ... Steve Ditko: Doctor Strange's reclusive creator - The Globe and Mail www.theglobeandmail.com › Arts › Film Nov 3, 2016 - Ditko's solo creation, Doctor Strange, is the latest Marvel ... While Smilin' Stan Lee's Hitchcock-ish, camera-mugging cameo is a sure thing, viewers ... belief that in life there is only good and evil, with no mushy moral middle. Steve Ditko: The Father Of DOCTOR STRANGE | Birth.Movies.Death. birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/10/31/steve-ditko-the-father-of-doctor-strange Oct 31, 2016 - Steve Ditko: The Father Of DOCTOR STRANGE ... Ask your average Joe and he'll tell you Stan Lee created all the Marvel ... to do with the creation of Captain America, and he's not the sole creator of any other character. Lee ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.39.149 (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorcerer Supreme in charge of what again?

It says that Dr. Strange is the Sorcerer Supreme, does that mean he is responsible for protecting the 616 Marvel Universe from mystical threats or just like what the article says on "Death of the Ancient One" that he is in chage of protecting the Earth's plane?

Honestly, it means whatever you want it to mean.DS (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity

As per Pop Matters, Ditko very likely intended Strange to be Asian. [1] How should this be reflected in the article? 16:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Strange/Archive_2&oldid=1136666546"