Talk:Doctor Octopus

I know that Draft:Otto Octavius (film character) has been rejected multiple times due "being a copy" of this main page, but since the first rejection in July 2021, the draft has been significantly improved, and there are several points in the draft about the portrayal of Dr. Octopus in the films that are unique to the film version of the character (or rather, the Raimiverse version. Who knows if there will be another one in the future?)

Even if said points are present in the main Doc Ock page, the page has already been critiqued as too long to read comfortably. By spinning off much of the information on the film version of Doc Ock into its own page, this would serve to tidy up the main Doc Ock page in my opinion--WuTang94 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Support it being potential mainspace ready. I notice all the rejections and the reasonings seems to be why it doesn’t have to be in mainspace but not necessarily why it shouldn’t be. I see their reasoning as an “I am not into such topic” deal. I still think Wikipedia is a work of progress if notability is established and I think it’s a notable enough topic despite not proven notability in its full potential. It should be in the same league of an already existent Norman Osborn film series page when it comes to examples. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure that appearing in two films is enough to have a split of this character at this time. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Heath Ledger’s Joker who only had one? Keep in mind Octavius was one of the most acclaimed villain portrayal before the Heath’s Joker came out. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's not a question of whether the draft page is any good / quality. It's whether there should be a split for the film character in general and how it should be split. Only two live-action portrayals in film so far, some animated feature film portrayals and numerous direct-to-videos. I don't see the portrayal in the single movie as outstanding as Heath Ledger's Joker, but if you are planning to split it that way then you should propose two articles: Otto Octavius (Spider-Man 2 (2004 film)) or Otto Octavius (Spider-Man: No Way Home). You could also generalize to over all non-comics versions to Doctor Octopus in other media as with Joker in other media. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much an issue on the Batman related articles. Selina Kyle (1989 film series character) and Joker (The Dark Knight) for instance is one film appearance. Also Gwen Stacy (The Amazing Spider-Man film series) is two appearances too. I would hardly even Dafoe’s Norman Osborn hallucination cameos as very vital appearances either. But ignoring that other articles exist (Yes I am aware of the argument to avoid deletion guideline about that)…character appearances doesn’t seem to negate notability guidelines anyway. More like a POV reasoning. I do realize he is an adapted character of an already existed article and all so it not high importance. But I need more argument than that then to change my mind that the article doesn’t need mainspace. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octopus in other media is not a bad idea. Same with Gwen Stacy maybe too. Especially with the popularity of Spider-Gwen. Though we don’t need to rush that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also thinking the title used so far is still the better title. Since that is what is done with JK Simmon's J. Jonah Jameson’s character article so far. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WuTang94; this is mainspace ready already. And Angus: you do know that Alfred Molina plays the exact same Otto Octavius from Spider-Man 2 in Spider-Man: No Way Home, picking up moments later for him from the events of the film, pulled in before he would have drowned? Separate pages per film would be like proposing different pages for Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series) and Norman Osborn (Marvel Cinematic Universe). It is the same version of the character played by the same actor. 89.19.88.142 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

89.19.88.142, then you could use the actor's name as the disambiguator: Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) as with Joker (Heath Ledger) Otherwise you might have to account for the animated film series, which Molina might or might not be involved in. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octopus in film would also work, as per Spider-Man in film. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the same bracketed title from Norman Osborn would work better. If we do Doctor Octopus in film then we would have to add the Spider-Verse female version too. Which is not as related. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per WuTang94. The article has been main space ready for a good while now in my opinion, and it's a bit of a shame that it's been turned down so many times. As for the title, I'd lean towards it being Otto Octavius (Sam Raimi film series character) - he is most widely known for his appearance in Spider-Man 2, so it only makes sense. It also gives us more leeway in case another version of the character comes to film. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONCISE, we must be as concise as we can when disambiguating article titles, and there are currently no other notable film iterations of Otto Octavius other than this one. If there comes a time when another version appears, this article can be moved to that title, but until that happens, Otto Octavius (film character) is unambiguous enough. —El Millo (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is ready, and this article is already long. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above as the character seems to meet the character notability guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WuTang94, the draft seems to be mainspace ready and the (film character) disambiguation by Millo could also work. — SirDot (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Slywriter, IronManCap, CodeLyoko AFC reviewers who declined draft. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 09:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @WuTang94: It has been over a week now; you can close this up as a unified Support (discussion are supposed to be closed up after a week). 89.19.88.23 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @89.19.88.23 Dunno if I have the permission to do it. I think an admin needs to be the one who closes this discussion. --WuTang94 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will ping admin @BD2412:. Who was involved with similar projects. Maybe he can decide the outcome of the consensus. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally a bad idea to seek out a specific admin to close a discussion, as it suggests forum shopping for an outcome. That said, consensus is clear and well-supported here, so I'll go ahead with it (more as an AfC-reviewer than as an admin, though). BD2412 T 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes My bad! Not my intention. A assumed I anyone else would assume good faith and that I boldly did it because there was a delay on an verdict. I had a concern there was some kind of concern. So it’s unsurprising. Definitely on this topsy turvy day for me. But still again my apologies, @BD2412:. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]