Marvel Database
Advertisement

Doctor Octopus

Can anybody cite any sources or references on Doc Ock's article please? It would be greatly appreciated, since this article mirrors wikipedia's far too well. The Robert: Your Idol (talkcontribsemail) 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 02:30, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

It probably resembles the Wikipedia page because somebody might have copied it from there. But yeah, Im not really a big enough fan of Spider-Man to know much about Doc Ock, so cant help you here, sorry. --Johnnybravo44 04:19, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Profile Image

Despite the recent events that have resulted in Octavius becoming Spider-Man, his profile image should remain one that depicts him as Doc Ock. The purpose of the image isn't to show off the most recent image of the character, but the most representative of that character. Despite the complete and total boococky that happened in the last issue of Amazing Spider-Man, Octavius is still best known for being Doctor Octopus, and the profile image should reflect that. LoveWaffle (talk) 07:49, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Profile images must show the current image of the character, I thought of that, but even if he's more well known as Doctor Octopus, he's currently Spider-Man. The same happened with Eddie Brock, he's more known as Venom but he was Toxin more recently. Norman Osborn has a image of his civilian identity though he was the Green Goblin for decades. That moment Steve Rogers left the shield to Bucky, we had a profile picture of him as Steve, not as Captain America. Same happened when five X-guys became Phoenix avatars. Even if it's temporary, it has to remain that way. But I think it would be better to change the image to a one less-"spoilerific".
ADour, the ADour-tacular ADour (talk) 10:16, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
Profile images must show the current image of the character,
Could someone explain that to me why that's the policy, because it doesn't make any sense. LoveWaffle (talk) 13:13, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
Might be a little late but whatever. Since this is a wiki, it should provide up-to-date information. A profile pic of Doctor Octopus wouldn't reflect current events, and would be outdated. The people who come to this wiki will be looking for character information, and would leave thinking that Otto Ocatvius is still Dr. Octopus, when in fact he is not. Hope that's not too confusing.DegradingSeeker (talk) 21:48, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
Sooo should we change the Spider-Man profile image to a picture of a dying Doc Ock?Time Traveling Bunny (talk) 19:41, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Just now seeing DegradingSeeker's comment, and that's...wrong. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a news source (that's what I leave my blogs for), and as each page should be towards the most notable representation of the character. A profile pic of Spider-Man asserts that the character is best known as Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus. People who come to this wiki will be looking for character information on Dr. Octopus, not Spider-Man, and seeing the image of Spider-Man might turn people away. If you're looking for up-to-date information on the character, that's what the rest of the page is for.
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:07, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Bunny: Peter Parker is still in his body, so he's Spider-Man along Otto Octavius. I thought about changing his profile picture to that one of Doc Ock in the article before this was revealed, but decided to keep the Spider-Man image as an homage to the character.
Waffle: Yes, this is an encyclopedia, an online encyclopedia in a modern world. Encyclopedias must be up-to-date, reason why "Otto Ocatvius (Earth-616)" must have a Spider-Man profile image, because he's now Spider-Man. And as far as I know it would help people who are trying to know more about "Doc Ock is now Spider-Man? I want to know moooreee!". It doesn't make sense to leave the main image as the only thing not up-to-date. Why wouldn't a pic of Doc Ock mislead them thinking "so... Doc Ock is not Spider-Man now?" after all, I don't think that someone would turn away immediately after seeing the Spider-Man picture, they know how to read the rest of the page.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:18, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to leave the main image as the only thing not up-to-date.
Because it's a profile image, and a profile image should be something representative. Something you can look at and immediately identify who that character is. The up-to-date information, including pictures of Octavius as Spider-Man, belong in the character's history section. So if you want to know more about Doc Ock becoming Spider-Man, you go to the page for Dr. Octopus, see the nice little table of contents at the side, see "Becoming Spider-Man" or something of the sort, and click on it.
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:28, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

"A profile image should be something representative". His current and talked-about-everyone representation is that of being Spider-Man. You could perfectly read the rest of the page and know about when he was Doc Ock, I don't think people are too stupid to see a Spider-Man picture and say "So, he'z not Doctor Octopuz as I thought... *close tab*". And it still doesn't make sense to leave everything but the profile image up-to-date. Is like putting a Ms. Marvel picture in Carol Danver's image just because she was Ms. Marvel for decadaes, doesn't make any sense.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:41, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Current, but not representative of the character. He's been Doc Ock for almost half a century (and has appeared in just about every Spider-Man related media as so), but has only been Spider-Man for a couple of weeks. And the comparison to Carol Danvers is unfair. While it was accompanied by a lot more than such, Carol Danvers leaving behind the Ms. Marvel identity and assuming the mantle Captain Marvel is aesthetically just a costume change. You can tell that's still Carol Danvers the same way you can tell Iron Man is still Iron Man despite undergoing a palette change. Octavius' transformation is a much more radical change than that, becoming an entirely different person (that's the whole point of the story, right?). But since you bring up Carol Danvers, I would point out that the image for her on the page for Ms. Marvel (which Carol Danvers redirects to) is an image of her as Ms. Marvel, while the image for Doctor Octopus (which Otto Octavius redirects to) is an image of him as Spider-Man.
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:00, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Because she's as "Captain Marvel" in the Captain Marvel desambig, the Ms. Marvel is dedicated to Ms. Marvel. If you want to can change the Spider-Man image in Doctor Octopus desambig using that explanation, you can do it. I still don't see how that can help with the profile pic.
I still don't see the point of putting a Doc Ock image in the profile pic, he's Spider-Man now, I don't see why does that need to live in the past. What about Eddie Brock being Toxin now? Thunderbolt Ross being Red Hulk? Betty Ross being She-Hulk? Pepper Potts being Rescue (when she was Rescue)? It doesn't make sense to let a look of the character which is possibly obsolete just because of the fear that people can't read.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:15, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Because representing what the character is now isn't the purpose of a profile pic. That's the purpose of a history section. The purpose of a profile pic is to provide a picture that is representative, notable, and instantly recognizable. So no, Eddie Brock should not be Toxin now and Pepper Potts should not have been rescue. The Ross...es as the Red Hulks is understandable, at least for the General maybe not so for Betty, because the heft of Marvel's marketing, for the comics and other media, has been towards those characters as Red Hulks. I would also ask, if this is the reasoning for profile pics, why every deceased character is not represented by human remains (assuming they had a human anatomy and had remains).
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:33, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
No, a profile image must represent what the character is in the moment, also, the history section doesn't need specifically to have images.
"because the heft of Marvel's marketing, for the comics and other media, has been towards those characters as Red Hulks."
...
Like Superior Spider-Man wasn't the big deal of Marvel in 2012/13... C'mon... I don't know from where this thing of "profile pictures must have the most recognizable image of a character" came up, but it just doesn't make sense. What about the new readers who are entering the world of comics and want to know more about the Superior Spider-Man they're reading? Seeing the image of Doc Ock "might turn people away".
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:44, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with ADour here. Profile pictures should be up to date. There's still plenty of pictures of Ock on this page to make it obvious enough that it's him, and actually reading the page should make it even more obvious. When he's out of Pete's body the picture will be changed to whatever he is then, and all this arguing will be pointless. Right now he is Spider-Man so he should be portrayed as Spider-Man. If we argued about how a character is best known, then Hank Pym's picture will be changed every day. Most logical solution is to go with what he is now. We have plenty of pictures in the rest of the page to display what he was in the past (not to mention the gallery). Andy Nominus (talk) 22:16, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

No, a profile image must represent what the character is in the moment, also, the history section doesn't need specifically to have images.

So what you're saying now is that the history section does not need to accurately depict the history of the character. How can Doc Ock's history be accurately portrayed without an image of him as Spider-Man?

Like Superior Spider-Man wasn't the big deal of Marvel in 2012/13

Actually it's not. Marvel's big deal in 2012/2013 is promoting an almost absurd amount of movies that's likely to make them an almost ungodly amount of money, one of which becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time and breaking a few legitimate records in the process. And it's clear that all of Marvel's efforts are going into promoting those films, which includes the Marvel NOW! re-launch (this is why Nick Fury was replaced by a character also named Nick Fury who is much closer to the design for Ultimate Nick Fury, the design used for the movies).
If Octavius as Peter Parker is promoted elsewhere, like the Rosses as the Red Hulks, then I could see it being his profile picture. If it has the staying power like the Red Hulks have, then I could see it as his profile picture. But it's currently and outlier and a transitory period in the character's almost 50-year history.

I don't know from where this thing of "profile pictures must have the most recognizable image of a character" came up

Because that's the actual purpose of a profile picture, and that you don't know that invalidates your position on the subject. I don't see how you can argue for something you don't even know the purpose of. Actually, I don't even know how you don't know that this is the purpose of a profile picture since you are currently using it. This is why both pictures you have provided as a profile picture is that of Iron Man, representing yourself via your fondness for Iron Man, and not an up-to-date picture of yourself.
Unless that is actually what you look like. In that case, you've got a pretty good case on Marvel stealing your likeness.

What about the new readers who are entering the world of comics and want to know more about the Superior Spider-Man they're reading? Seeing the image of Doc Ock "might turn people away".

I don't know, maybe we have a responsibility to show new readers who the character really is. And who the character is is the villainous Otto Octavius, genius supervillain and founder of the Sinister Six...all of which is important to understanding the most recent issue.

And you still haven't answered the question - if representing the character as it is at this moment, why are deceased characters not represented by a corpse or remains of some sort?
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:28, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed how absurd you're becoming?
"So what you're saying now is that the history section does not need to accurately depict the history of the character. How can Doc Ock's history be accurately portrayed without an image of him as Spider-Man?"
I'm implying what would happen if that idea of yours that his image must be that of Doc Ock.
Actually, Marvel doesn't focus only in movies, as you should know. Some new titles such as Avengers Assemble, the new Avengers volume and every Marvel NOW! title were talked/are being talked about a lot. I don't know if you read many comicbook news websites, but you should realize that Superior Spider-Man was specifically one of the titles that attracted more the attention of the media.
"Actually, I don't even know how you don't know that this is the purpose of a profile picture since you are currently using it. This is why both pictures you have provided as a profile picture is that of Iron Man, representing yourself via your fondness for Iron Man, and not an up-to-date picture of yourself."
That is called an "avatar", an image someone can use in the web if they don't want to reveal your true identity, you should know that since you are currently using it.
As long as I know you have to change the picture of your ID. Oh, wait, I had this look for over 20 years, I should keep this picture of me in my mid-30s even if I'm 100 years old!
What if the readers want to know more about the new Superior Spider-Man status-quo? Tell me.
Oh, and if your logic is going by the character's most recognized over time, we should put a image of fatty bucket-hair cut Doc Ock, and not the most recent one... Someone can be mislead because they see him with 8 tentacles instead of one, oh noes!
Do you have a picture of the corpse of your grandma in the wall? When a character dies, the look that stays is that when its heart was still beating.
Really, dude, re-read what you write, you're just making it worse for your side of the argument.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 23:02, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
  1. How can you possibly say changing the picture to Doc Ock removes the reference to him becoming Spider-Man? If profile pic is of him as Doc Ock, there would still be a picture of him as Spider-Man in the history section of the page. That's been my point the entire time.
  2. The movie aren't their only focus, but it undoubtedly is their biggest. And I'm pretty sure they're attracting more attention: [1][2]
  3. There is no difference between the purpose of an avatar here and a profile picture. You are using it to represent yourself. And even if you don't want to count the little square, that shows up when you leave a comment, I could refer to the picture on your profile page (i.e. your profile picture), which is a picture of Iron Man. 4 of your fellow admins (2 of whom are Jamie and Nathan) use that to display a picture of themselves. So no matter how you look at it, you're using a picture of Iron Man to represent yourself.
  4. You know how we tell new readers about Superior Spider-Man status quo? We right synopses for the issues of the comic book, and dutifully update character histories for all characters involved; we could put a link to the most recent issue on the main page. We can do all of that, and we in deed do all of that, without having to misrepresent a character. If your answer is to simply change the profile picture, then we're doing other readers a disservice and taking the easy way out (and I know you and other editors put more work into this site than that).
  5. As far as I'm concerned, bowl-cut Doc Ock is a better profile picture than what's currently used. It at least shows him as Doctor Octopus, which is how the character will always be known.
  6. You're right, I don't have an image of my dead grandmother on the wall. Nor do I have an image of her from the year and a half she spent in a hospital bed withering away from a vicious double-whammy of Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. That's my point exactly. I have a picture of her as I remember her, a picture that's representative of her. But, if the purpose of a profile picture is to have something up-to-date, then the most up-to-date picture of Ben Parker would be a pile of bones, or at least his grave marker - and not him as alive and standing.
And I would recommend you curb the use of personal attacks. They don't reflect well on your argument or position as an administrator.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:44, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
1. I'm talking hypothetically, jeez.
2. You know that Google search not only links to news pages, right? That source is not that valid.
3. No, the avatar is not used to represent yourself exclusively (mostly the opposite), it has many uses, but saying that I am Iron Man or that I feel like I'm Iron Man by my avatar is just stupid. I like Iron Man and I want to show it in my avatar. It's as stupid as saying that Mbarriosfuenmayor is Spider-Man with armor, StanLee4Ever is a wolf, Artemis Panther is Deathstroke, KalKent is Slender Man or that The Next X-Man is a X-Men logo. By that logic, you are a muslim from South Park or something similar. Jamie and Nathan can perfectly post real images of them as I could, if I wanted to.
4. Isn't a wikia supposed to help people in an easy way? And we are not misrepresenting a character, is Otto Octavius Spider-Man, yes he is. By your logic I could say that we would misrepresentate him by using his classsic look in the profile, when he's Spider-Man.
Oh, and as far as I know the title of a page is the alias given in "Current Alias", right? Current alias --> current look.
5. Then why don't we put a Romita Spider-Man, or the classic Armor Iron Man! That logic is simply stupid. It makes 0 sense to put everything up-to-date except the main image, it can also help who is reading it, saying "Oh, so Doc Ock now has 8 arms instead of 4 and he looks crippled" (before the mind-swap) without forcing them to go to the specific section of the page where you'll find a image of the character. Zero sense.
6. You just didn't understood what I said... Meh, I'm getting used to it.
7. I'm not attacking you, but your argument, one thing is "You suck" to "Your argument sucks", you are thinking that because I find your argument nonsensical, I find you nonsensical, and you feel attacked when I attack your argument (... and I thought studying fallacies was stupid). I would recommend you curb the use of personal attacks, because you say that I'm an admin and I have to be a nice guy with everyone's argument, even if I disagree at all, thus attacking me, threatening that my position of an admin can be in danger because I express my disagreement with something.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:29, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
How a character is best known is based solely on personal opinion and therefore fallible. People can argue about it for ages and no one will be right or wrong, and nothing will be solved. Nobody can argue a character's current look or status, so it's much more logical to represent the character in their current state. When/if Otto is no longer Spider-Man he will no longer be depicted as Spider-Man. Right now he IS Spider-Man. Andy Nominus (talk) 00:48, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  1. If you're speaking hypothetically, why even make the point?
  2. That Google links to more than just news sources is what makes it valid. But if you want to list only news sources, the movie has an even greater edge.[3][4]
  3. I'm not saying you're Iron Man. I'm saying you choose to represent yourself through your preference for Iron Man.
  4. Wiki is supposed to help people in an easy way, which is why it should represent characters with representative profile pictures.
  5. Why is the logic stupid? If classic armor Iron Man represents the character better than his current profile pic, it makes for a better profile pic. However, his current one gets the job done, so it doesn't need to be changed. The current profile pic for Otto Octavius does not represent the character, only as he is for a limited period of time.
  6. What else could you have meant? Your response to my asking why deceased characters are not given an up-to-date profile image was "Do you have a picture of the corpse of your grandma in the wall?" If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should be a bit clearer?
  7. I apologize that you feel threatened, but you must understand my situation. Every time I am in a debate with you, I get the same two responses from you: a) You and/or your argument is stupid/nonsensical/absurd, or b) you didn't read what I wrote. You may not realize it, but these come off as personal attacks and quite condescending, particularly when you make statements like "Maybe you need a pair of glasses, I can use my contacts and lend you mine."[5] I understand you made that statement prior to becoming an admin, but now that you are one you need to hold yourself to a higher standard, one I do not feel you are meeting. As such, it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion with you. Don't get me wrong - as an editor, I have the utmost respect for you, but as a debater I am afraid to say I have none.
  8. As for Andy Nominus' objection, the simple answer would be a simple test - "What disambiguation page does this character's name redirect to?" Otto Octavius redirects to Doctor Octopus, so his profile picture should be of that, while Hank Pym redirects to Giant-Man (which is currently his profile picture anyway). A different solution would be to lock profile pictures and have editors vote on proposed replacements. I know this system is used on other wikis, and would help prevent spoilers leaking onto the page, which was what started this discussion in the first place. Would that be fair?
If you don't mind, I'm going to disengage. I'll do my best to refrain from posting here any further for at least 24 hours.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:48, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
I do fully agree that there should be a picture of him as Doc Ock ON the Doctor Octopus disambugation page. That makes perfect sense. But on his personal page his profile picture should match his current alias. Don't forget a character can show up on multiple disambugation pages due to shared aliases. Peter Parker, Sue Storm, and X-23 have all been Captain Universe but they don't have their Captain Universe picture on their personal profiles, they're shown in their current state (those alive anyway). Don't forget Otto is also on the Spider-Man disambugation as well. I wasn't aware the Doc Ock disambugation displayed his Spider-Man pic, that should be changed immediately. Andy Nominus (talk) 02:16, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
I already told you there's no problem with changing the desambig image of Doctor Octopus to an actual image of Otto as Doc Ock. But also, the quantity of the Avengers and Superior Spider-Man news don't truly reflect their importance, the Avengers movie was announced a lot of years before, while the whole Superior Spider-Man started in November, I think.
Even if we are sure it's for a limited period of time, we can't speculate, it might last forever. If I just response you that your (not you, again...) argument makes no sense I present a counterargument which supports mine, as I've been doing a lot of time, I even gave you a link to an official dictionary one time or to an official novelization another. And most of the time you seem not to understand what I wrote or not giving it attention, many times (such as in Aquaman's discussion) I even told you with quotes what did I say.
Maybe I just tell you that what you say is invalid and that you need to review what I say, but with a good motive and argument that supports my ideas everytime. But also, I don't think that because I'm an admin I have to treat myself as being one step higher than other people, I still can discuss and express my opinions the way I feel they're correct, you should expect that long discussions will tire both sides even more if both sides are stubborn with their ideas.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 02:38, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Does mean we should change the Kaine Disambiguation page from the Scarlet Spider pic of his Current Alias?

--Mystery User (talk) 07:36, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
Kaine is his actual name though. Complicates things a bit. This should be discussed on his page from here. Andy Nominus (talk) 03:49, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
Nominus, I think you misunderstood me a bit. Allow me to explain further: The test is to what page the character's name redirects to. Although Peter Parker has gone by more aliases than just Spider-Man, "Peter Parker" only redirects to "Spider-Man". Since "Peter Parker" redirects to "Spider-Man" and not any of the other aliases he has gone by, such as Captain Universe, this is the is the wiki's tacit approval of Spider-Man as Peter Parker's most notable alter ego/identity. By my reasoning, Peter Parker should then have a profile picture that depicts him as Spider-Man. The same can be said for "James Howlett", which redirects to "Wolverine", "Tony Stark" goes to "Iron Man", "Bruce Banner" to "the Hulk", etc. Since "Otto Octavius" re-directs to "Doctor Octopus", the wiki has given its approval of Doctor Octopus as Octavius' most notable identity. Therefore, his profile picture should be one that depicts him as Doctor Octopus.
Is that any clearer?
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:17, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's his most notable identity. That's why I don't have any problem with the return of a Doc Ock image to his desambig page, but the profie image must show a current look of the character, after all, the title of the page is the name put in "Current Alias", isn't it? It should be accompanied by his current look/identity. If not, it would be a total and inacceptable inconsistency.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 14:04, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
The title of the page is "Otto Octavius (Earth-616)", and "Otto Octavius" redirects to "Doctor Octopus". A picture used as a summary of the page only representing a fraction of its content is a total and unacceptable inconsistency.
LoveWaffle (talk) 19:46, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
The desambig page depicts Otto Octavius as a whole. And each "Otto Octavius (Earth-####)" depicts the Otto Octavius of that reality, you're mixing two things which are not the same. What could you do against the Title of page = Current Alias, thus Main image of the page = Current look? If you want to put a Doc Ock image in the profile picture, then it would say "Spider-Man" above a Doc Ock image, it would be a total and inacceptable inconsistency.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 17:29, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
The title of the page is "Otto Octavius (Earth-616)". Having an image that is supposed to represent the page be an image that only reflects a small fraction of its content is a total and unacceptable inconsistency.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:12, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
As I already said (then people complaint about how I argue), the profile image must show the current look of the characters, not to give an overall representation of it (what the desambig image does, as an example), being a small fraction of its story or not. Again with mixing this which are not the same, that's a total and unacceptable inconsistency of an argument.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 18:35, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Giving an overall representation of the page is the function of the profile image. Why should everything at the top of the page, infobox included, be a summary of the article except for the profile image? That's a total and unacceptable inconsistency.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:52, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Really? The inbox a an overall representation of the character? lol. As far as I know the infobox includes "Current alias" as the title of the page, but also we put "Formerly" if the character is no longer a member of X team he was for 50 years, or "Formerly" if the character had a beautiful hair which mostly represented him and now is bald, or if the character has a different occupation of which he was mostly known.
250xp
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:11, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
Again, the title of the page is "Otto Octavius (Earth-616)" and not "Spider-Man". And if the infobox was not a summary of the page, there wouldn't be any need to list anything as "formerly".
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:05, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
The name of the page is "Otto Octavius (Earth-616)" and the title is "Spider-Man". You can see that if you create the field "| Title = ", the text in that field would replace "Name" or "Current Alias". And the infobox contains the basic data of the character, which is not the same thing as summary.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:19, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
The title of the page and the name of the page is the same thing. But I'll try the | Title = thing. Furthermore, containing the basic data of the character is a summary of the character.
ADDENDUM: What do you know? It worked - [6]
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:45, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
A summary would be to contain all the info in the whole in the smallest way possibly. The basic data is to contain the smallest quantity of information necessary about to character, such as origin, alias, relatives, affiliation. The profile inbox would be like a those trading cards which comes with info about the character.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:14, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a summary.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:03, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
No, read again.
--(ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 02:45, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

You're giving what is close to a textbook definition of a summary, and trying to pass that off as something other than a summary. If that's not what you mean, I'd suggest you rephrase.
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:49, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think I made myself clear enough, maybe you need to re-read it. I can copy-paste it so you don't have to scroll: A summary would be to contain all the info in the whole in the smallest way possibly. The basic data is to contain the smallest quantity of information necessary about to character, such as origin, alias, relatives, affiliation. The profile inbox would be like a those trading cards which comes with info about the character. I hope you get it now.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 02:56, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
I read it right the first time. You're giving close to the dictionary definition of a summary, and trying to pass that off as something different from a summary. Well, maybe "abstract" would be a better word, but "abstract" and "summary" are the same thing just in a different format:
A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract.[7]
So, again, if that's not what you meant, I suggest you re-phrase.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:02, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Yep, you again. I'll explain it so you can understand. Summary: all information in less words. Basic data: Only what's needed in less words.
Actually, no "abstract" and "summary" aren't the same thing. And I can give you the definitons of both things based on an official dictionary, not "the Free Dictionary".
Something abstract doesn't want to represent something in concrete or wants to separate it from the material world, something summarized wants to reduce to simple and precise terms something.
I don't want to offend you, but that definition of "abstract" was a crime against many things.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:15, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
You have to be joking, right? You are CLEARLY using the wrong definition of "abstract" to undermine my position. So I will provide you with the correct definition of abstract:
To summarize; epitomize.[8]
You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such underhanded, immature tactics.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:19, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, of course I feel bad for using definitions of an official dictionary, contrary to "The Free Dictionary". You're losing that touch in arguments you barely had.
Don't worry, I realized what happened to you. You mistook an abstract with "abstract". But also, an abstract is entirely used for academic purposes. You need to research more.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:51, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, but this is an English-language website. Any Spanish-language sources cannot be used since things get lost in translation. In fact, this is even more true in this case since this definition of "abstract" does not even exist in the Spanish language. However, if my one dictionary isn't enough, I'll provide more:

  • a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form; also : something that summarizes or concentrates the essentials of a larger thing or several things[9]
  • a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.[10]
  • a summary of the contents of a book, article, or speech[11]
  • a shortened form of a speech, article, book, etc., giving only the most important facts or ideas[12]

So I will re-iterate - you give the definition of a summary, and then try to pass that off as something other than a summary. If that's not what you meant, I suggest you re-phrase. When approached with a completely valid source that contradicts you, you claim it is invalid on baseless reasons. When presented with the fallacy inherent within your argument, you claim I did not read what you wrote and then misrepresent what I said. You should be ashamed of such underhanded tactics, an immature attitude and condescending tone, and is beneath your status as an administrator.

Don't worry, I realized what happened to you. You mistook an abstract with "abstract". But also, an abstract is entirely used for academic purposes. You need to research more.

Which is exactly what you did.
Since the infobox is an abstract, a summary of the article, it is an unacceptable inconsistency to have the image that is supposed to represent Otto Octavius be something other than himself as Doctor Octopus.
LoveWaffle (talk) 04:11, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, man. You're like a parrot, but worse. Okay, you win the "abstract" argument, if it will make you feel better with yourself, I don't even know why you came out with the abstract in the first place. I already told you what a summary is:
Summary: a brief statement or account of the main points of something.[13]
Which is not the same as the "basic data":
Basic: forming an essential foundation or starting point.[14]
An infobox provides the starting point to know something about the character: He is Spider-Man now, he was Doc Ock, among other points. A summary would explain he is Spider-Man now, he was Doc Ock, he got in shape, he revivied, he was killed by Kaine, he was the Master Planner, he became Doc Ock in an accident.
I don't want to insult your intelligence, but you just seem to be a stubborn kid who wants to go around the bush when he clearly lost an argument in order to come up with another one totally unecessary for the discussion and win in order to feel better with himself. I don't think which is more immature, as you not only misunderstood what I said various replies earlier and I need to tell it to you again in this reply, really mature.
That's all, I explained what your little brain couldn't process with the same sources you used in your argument, showing you just need to understand things better instead of starting an useless discussion.
Also, don't think you know what a fallacy is, just makes you look stupider.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 04:34, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
And I could say just the same of you. The difference is that I am not an administrator, and am not held to any higher standard.
LoveWaffle (talk) 05:27, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, I wasn't who brought to discussion the popularity of the Avengers movie, the avatar picture of users, personal attacks, the image of desambig pages, the function of infoboxes and what's an abstract.
By the way, a fallacy is a misconception in an argument which doesn't help it to prove right, so you can understand, in the moment I told you to do more research you didn't do the reasearch, you did afterwards. It would be an "irony" or "cynical attitude", but not a fallacy, as the "mistake" of my argument didn't happen until after I presented it. I hope you just learned something new.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 12:03, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

...I gotta say, I think everyone really ought to chill the f*** out. Both of you seem to have left the realm of civil discussion and have entered the realm of politicians, failing to move the discussion forward, and instead hurling insults and pointing out everything wrong with the other person and their arguements.

Lovewaffle: Yes, this is an encyclopedia. But that doesn't mean it needs to focus on the past.

If you want an example from the real world, take the Wikipedia entry for Jesse Ventura. Now, he's mostly known to the world as Jesse "The Body" Venture, WWF wrestling heavyweight and the tobacco chewing heavy weapons guy from Predator. However, his article doesn't depict him in a unitard with 'roid muscles. He's depicted as a flabby, balding host of a TV show about highly flimsy conspiracy theories, which is what he current does with his life. The same can be applied here; Otto is Spider-Man now, the biggest identity anyone can have in the Marvel Universe. His mug shot in the infobox shold reflect that.

If you want examples from our world, look at James "Bucky" Barnes. Obviously, he's known as Bucky, the chipper sidekick of good 'ole boy Captain America. But we've always reflected his modern aliases, be it Captain America or Winter Soldier.

However, this is also a wiki, which means we're democratic. We don't go with something just because an admin says so. If that were the case, we'd still be lifting content from Comicvine and the Appendix, a practice an admin from the start of the wiki advocated before stepping down, years before any of us came along.

But being democratic, everyone has a say, even if it's different than yours. And while most of the comments are from you and ADour, the few I saw above are in agreement with ADour That the current alias should be depicted int he infobox, in this case the Spider-Man knock off Doc is parading around as. You're one of our more fine-tuned editors, so I know you don't need a lecture about compromise or some such, but for the time being, your view is not looking like the forerunner here. Just my two cents.

ADour: From one admin to another, I'll be highly blunt. You really were out of line for parts of the conversation here. At no time should an admin break down into something as petty as name calling with a user, no matter the situation. I agree with your views here, but, as evidence by this entire conversation, not everyone does. That doesn't mean that the user, his views or his logic are "stupid", as you put it. It means they're differnt. I'm sure you see it as an open and close case in reguards to what belongs in the info box, but it's not that simple, becuase we are open to democratic opinion. ADour, I have no doubt that you can come up with any number of well crafted arguements to reflect your viewpoints that are not "I'm right, you're wrong, why don't you see that?", which is the vibe I got reading thru a lot of the posts here.

To Both of You: I expect you both to be mature enough to work out your differences on this issue in a civil manner. This is hardly something to be blown out of proportion like it has been; I'm sure we all recall that the last time a policy discussion got out of hand, we lost a good contributor in User:Tony ingram. I would perfer that not happen again.

Now that I've ranted, and I'm sure I've offended all parties involved, I'll be signing off for a while. Work it out guys. Surely you all can reach an agreement here? --Spencerz (talk) 16:30, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

I can see you're clearly right, I'll admit my part of the blame that this discussion escalated to such levels. But my only opinion is that, even if two points of view can be different, one of them can also be "stupid" if enough evidence to prove it illogical, and the party who presented it needs to change subject in order to try to prove it right, although it has been proven wrong many times.
But as Tony said "the individual I was interacting with was, I believe, being deliberately provocative", starting with the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument in the very first reply, mocking the other party and threatening it, as a student would say to a teacher "you can't hit me because you'll get fired".
I already supported my arguments with logical sources and examples, as well with the support of numerous (3 is numerous, right?) users. I'm done with this discussion, not because I can't find more arguments, as you said I can, Spencerz, but they're walls strong enough to be brought down with pebbles.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 18:33, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Spencerz,
Sure, I'll chill out, and accept majority rule. Johnnybravo44 already chimed in on the forum page, so things don't look like they're going my way, anyway.
That being said, I'd still recommend someone looking into the voting thing, if only as a method to prevent vandalism. The issue that started this whole mess was users uploading images of Octavius as Spider-Man before Amazing Spider-Man #700 was released, after all. And there have been issues with another user uploading his own preferential image for Octavius' profile pic. Despite my incessant objection to the current profile pic, I never went that far.
And thanks, for the "fine-tined" complement, for whatever that's worth.
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:56, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Main Pic

Why is Oct's Picture from superior #14? The No Escape arc isn't even finished yet. Mr. Xemnas (talk) 15:25, July 8, 2013 (UTC) (talk) 15:21, July 8, 2013 (UTC) (sign) I hate superior Spider-man.

He already appeared with this new outfit in Avengers.
The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 15:47, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Superior Six Plan Epiloge

Who has Octavius collected already for his Superior Six? Can this be expanded upon his page plz? {{SUBST:User:SaiyanElite/sig8}} 13:31, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Eyes & Hair

What is the color of Otto Octavius's eyes and hair. Is it hazel and brown even before the body swap. --Cococrash11 (talk) 01:01, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

All-New, All-Different

Is the new incarnation of Doctor Octopus the true Otto Octavius? Could he be considered similar to the new Red Skull since both only have their mental recording of the original up until a certain point?--MysteryScooby (talk) 17:11, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question. He's for all intents and purposes the original Doc Ock back from the dead, but you're right in that he's similar in many respects to the original Red Skull's clone. Arawn 999 (talk) 02:04, September 22, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, he should be given his own page, but how would we name it: Otto Octavius (A.I.) (Earth-616) (since it's how he is presented in ASM #18) or we follow a similar path to the Red Skull's clone and name it Otto Octavius (Clone) (Earth-616) (SPOILER: I think that's okay since he now has his own body thanks to the Jackal).
--The Many-Angled One (talk) 01:13, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
Is he a clone, though? Otto's corpse went missing, and (SPOILER: I recall reading that what Jackal is doing - or so he tells Wilson Fisk - isn't cloning but actual resurrection. If this is Otto's original body reanimated and not a clone, then wouldn't it still be Otto Octavius (Earth-616)?) Arawn 999 (talk) 01:37, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
Yes, his body disappeared, and yes, the Jackal is reanimating people in cloned bodies (as seen with Francine Frye in ASM #17 and - SPOILER - Gwen Stacy in The Clone Conspiracy #1), but if the Otto Octavius who inhabits the cloned body is the back-up consciousness and not the original one who died in Superior Spider-Man, then he will be an exception. The Otto Octavius who died during Superior Spider-Man would never antagonize Spider-Man again, the back-up consciousness, in the other hand, would, and that's why he's the one returning (that's why I think Otto Octavius (A.I.) (Earth-616) would be better than Otto Octavius (Clone) (Earth-616)).
--The Many-Angled One (talk) 02:03, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
But if he's no longer an A.I., then that designation doesn't work anymore. Arawn 999 (talk) 02:07, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
Mark me down for Otto Octavius (Duplicate) (Earth-616). He's a copy, but not a clone, and no longer artificial once within a New U body's brain. -- Annabell (talk) 03:17, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
That's good!
--The Many-Angled One (talk) 06:32, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
OR, (or) we wait until the event goes further before we jump to conclusions? It's not completely clear yet that these guys are clones, new duplicates, or the originals revived. In fact, ASM #20 next week will probably talk more about Doc Ock, so can we at least wait until then? Ben 1,000,911 (talk) 03:27, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
Doctor Octopus is different from New U's other "resurrected." While the origin of his body is up to debate, the origin of his mind was clearly explained as a copy of Otto's consciousnesses from before Superior Spider-Man #20.--MysteryScooby (talk) 20:52, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
For me it's more than proved that these people are their original selves brought back (or, as the Jackal put it, reanimated) in cloned bodies. Slott wouldn't make the Jackal explain it two times just for nothing. The only mystery here is how the Jackal is capable of doing it, this is the thing that will be explored further.
--The Many-Angled One (talk) 06:32, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this "duplicate" is actually a real Otto Octavius.
Firstly, Dan Slott himself positions your "duplicate" as Otto Octavius, without memories from the plot of the Goblin Nation. He is an author, so he means it. The same move was used in the 90's, when Otto died, but before that he made a copy of his memories, thereby creating a Master Programmer. Later this copy was implanted in the body of Doc Ock. Then he, too, did not remember the secret identity of the Spider-Man. In this case, the origin of Otto's consciousness from the 90's also need to be questioned?
Secondly, I think that Dan Slott used one of the concepts of consciousness transfer. Its essence is that in the world at the time of the appearance of the "duplicate", Otto Octavius ​​himself did not exist. Consequently, it can not be said that there is a consciousness duplicating some other "original" consciousness.
Thirdly, Otto Octavius ​​copied not his personality. He copied his brain waves and memories. Talk about the concept of "personality" in this case is not appropriate. Otherwise, in this case, Peter Parker, who died in the body of Doc Ock, and then miraculously turned out to be alive, can also be considered a duplicate. In addition, Otto himself mentioned that "Peter" was just a projection of memories, and not a real person.
--Amazing Bedsheet-Man (talk) 14:41, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying he's not a real Otto Octavius. For all intents and purposes, he is Otto Octavius.
1) Nick Spencer too positioned the Red Skull clone as the Red Skull. He is an author too and he also meant it, but that didn't change the fact that that Red Skull was a clone. As you said, the copy was implanted in the Doc Ock's body upon his resurrection. This is clearly a merger. He's still the original Doc Ock, he just happened to forget Spider-Man's identity because the memories uploaded to his brain were up to a point of his life in that he still didn't know it. The same can't be said of the dupe though. He was in a cloned body of the original Otto Octavius, and now he inhabits another cloned body that has the DNA of both his original template and Peter Parker.
2) Just because the original is dead doesn't mean that he didn't exist. They even coexisted for some time, with the original running around while the dupe was hibernating (similar to the Red Skull/Red Skull clone situation).
3) If that's not copying one's personality, then I don't know what is. Talking about the concept of "personality" here is totally inappropriate, yeah. This is fiction after all, and discussing about it can get a little philosophical. But let's discuss about it just a little bit: is body swapping really possible? If it is, are we certain that Otto Octavius transferred his mind to Peter Parker's body? Because he basically rewrote Peter's brain with his own brain patterns. One could say that Otto simply reworked Peter's brain to make it believe he was Doc Ock, and the same can be said of Otto's brain.
Anyway, we aren't here to talk about this. After dying in Octavius' body, Peter's history continued from there. There was no "splitting to other branches" here, so he is basically Peter. Otto, in the other hand, sacrificed himself so Peter could save the day (an action that his dupe disapproves) while the copy of his consciousness, which was created days before his death, was activated days later. Now add to that the fact that the dupe didn't pass through such developments, thus making this a clear "splitting to other branches" situation, and we have more than enough reasons to justify separate pages for them.
--The Many-Angled One (talk) 09:58, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Way much scientific blahblah for a comic book character

Remember that Yahoo example where some guy just wanted to know if a light-saber could harm Superman? Rather than a "Not really" he received about a small book`s "Worth" of information.

This is going on here too, except far worse:

Now, if I want to know if Spiderman can crawl vertically as well as horizontally, I have no idea unless I spend hours on Wikipedia learning all about physics, and that is only for starters, because the Otto Octavius "Spiderman section" does not even bother to answer such directly, but rather assumes the reader is a scientific genius which can easily answer that after... Having at least four degrees at Harvard?

Try to change this issue will you? I am just damn lawyer here okay?

How can you do that?

"Spiderman`s powers allows for him to climb vertically and horizontally on most surfaces"

Then you can freely add stuff such as "Due to the dimensional rift created within the spacing between his hand and the epidermis which due to the spider`s nanofactor can constrict and bend materials at sub-atomic levels and...

I don't know what I wrote above, and you might, now if you get my point and do something about the issue, you can all keep comparing the science behind FICTIONAL characters, and I can read comic books without graduating in... UberGeek, because its crap, whoever wrote this article needs to be able to level with common people (alternatively get yourself a damn membership in Mensa and solve their puzzles all day long instead! You think you are improving this section? You are ruining it!)

I cant believe this, its the "Superman wet noodle" all over again... NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD!

HenryZX (talk) 22:49, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the level of scientific "blah blah" (as you put it) is from official sources. Meaning, Marvel Comics goes to that level of detail explaining things as well. It may come as a shock to you, but some people actually enjoy reading technical details of this type. As for needing to learn physics or needing "four degrees at Harvard" is kind of absurd. It's all flim-flam created to create a plausible enough explanation for something in the fiction. But hey, if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to read it. Also if it's too technical for you why are you even wondering how a character can do x, y and z. Suspension of disbelief should be adequate enough to get you by. I have to also point out that this wiki has been around for over a decade now and you're the first person to whine about how reading the scientific specifications as being too hard. Complaining about this is like reading the list of ingredients to something and complaining that you need to be a master chef to understand it. It's equally absurd. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment, if we need anymore from your little peanut gallery don't call us, we'll call you.
Nausiated (talk) 17:21, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

I hope you never find someone willing to apologize for making you learn something. Monolith616 (talk) 18:29, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

I found the text quite amusing with its high camp value. Marvel has come a long way from the 60s when Stan Lee, Doctor of All Sciences, dreamed up tales about all-powerful transistors, human-catching magnets and one-in-million chance nuclear accidents. Or is just a fiction?Mrkermit (talk) 17:58, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Superior Spider-Man not actually Doc Ock?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the end of the Superior Spider-Man arc, but didn’t the end of the Superior Spider-Man arc confirm that the Doc Ock that was in Peter Parker’s head was just his brainwaves and not his actual consciousness? If they truly switched minds, wouldn’t Peter have actually died in Ock’s body? And if the Ock in Peter’s body isn’t considered a copy, I don’t understand how the version that escaped through the robot and inhabited the New U body and later the proto-clone would be considered a duplicate if Supwrior Ock isn’t. (FYI, I do think that version should be considered a duplicate.) The whole situation reminds me of the situation with Vision. He’s not Simon Williams even though he has his brainwaves. I don’t think replicating brainwaves can really be considered the original character because conceivably there was still an Ock in his brain when his body died. This could be done repeatedly, making it hard to explain who the true version is. --KurtW95 (talk) 02:58, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

Superior Octopus is a digital backup of all the original Otto Octavius' memories up until his defeat at the hands of Spider-Man during Spider-Verse, but nothing beyond, now inhabiting the body of a genetically engineered clone made from the splicing of both Otto and Peter's DNA; meanwhile, the Superior Spider-Man's brain waves existed before and after the creation of the backup copy, but chose to erase themselves from existence in Superior Spider-Man #30. -- Annabell (talk) 03:37, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but I was talking about the brainwaves in control of Peter Parker’s body. The way I understood it, that wasn’t the original Doc Ock either. --KurtW95 (talk) 03:52, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
Otto uploaded his mind into an Octobot and then had it transfer his mind into Peter's body. While that opens the whole situation to debate for us, readers, per our understanding of it, Marvel's official instance is that they did switch bodies. Also, the Vision's mental patterns were based on the brain engrams of Wonder Man, it isn't similar to Otto and Peter's situation.
--TMAO (talk) 04:05, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
This is a rather philosophical question. Although the true Otto died at the end of the Superior Spider-Man, he created a copy of his consciousness, which also acts like a true Otto Octavius. An AI Otto and the one that died at the end of Goblin Nation are presented as one and the same character, both by Dan Slott, and it's also Marvel's official instance. Plus, in the comics, the characters (and even Peter who saw the death of Ock) do not think that the artificial Octavius is a duplicate. Otto understood that he was creating a copy of his consciousness, hoping to survive in this way and it worked, because it was part of his plan. So for all intents and purposes, (technically) true Octavius is still alive. Two pages, in my opinion, bring confusion to the character's history, so I think it's necessary to unite them, or at least link these pages among themselves, constantly referring them to each other. This is quite an interesting situation, so we can discuss this for a long time.
--AlexDet20 (talk) 12:52, June 22, 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not necessary to merge the pages. For all intents and purposes, the real Otto Octavius died during the Goblin Nation. He passed through a character development that his copy didn't for it was created based on Otto's consciousness at the moment of its creation (during Spider-Verse). They're presented as being the same character because one is the copy of the other, not because they're really one and the same. Other characters not knowing the copy's true origin doesn't make them one and the same either. Furthermore, a clear distinction between both Ottos is made in the very issue that reveals the copy's origin.
--TMAO (talk) 22:54, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Real Otto (Confirmed)

According to the Spider-Geddon Handbook Vol 1 1 there is no distinction between this and the original Doctor Octopus, they are bot the same men, and this page and Otto Octavius (Earth-616) should be merged. If that's not enough for you, here are some precedences that would also justify the merger:

  • First, going back to the original death of Doctor Octopus back in Spectacular Spider-Man #221 and his subsequent resurrection in Amazing Spider-Man #427. Since his mind was completely gone, Lady Octopus used the memories of the Master Programmer, an artificial intelligence created from a copy of Otto's mind prior to his death in Spectacular #221. This copy of memories was missing memories of what happened prior to his death (particularly learning Peter Parker's secret identity). Although this was Otto's original body, it was the mind of the Master Programmer that was transferred into the body. Yet, it is still considered the original Doctor Octopus.
  • Another example: The Red Skull. The Skull seemingly died in Captain America #297. He then turned up alive in a clone body of Captain America in Captain America #350. This is still considered the same Red Skull even though it was a copy of his mind transferred into a new body. He was still considered the original Red Skull when he was assassinated by Winter Soldier in Captain America (Vol. 5) #1 and his mind was transferred into the body of Alexander Lukin. That said, the clone that first appeared in Uncanny Avengers #1 would be considered a different entity because, although it is a clone of the Red Skull, it didn't have the mind of the original Skull transferred into it. Its memories stop at 1942.
  • On the same token, the Adolf Hitler clone, AKA the Hate-Monger. When Adolf Hitler was killed in Young Men #24 his mind was transferred into a clone body. As explained in Super-Villain Team-Up #17, every time the Hate-Monger is killed his mind is transferred into a new clone body. None of these later clone bodies are considered separate entities. Distinctions: The handbooks state that the Hate-Monger's mind is a copy of Adolf Hitler but a distinct entity. However, every time his mind is transferred into a new clone body it is not a copy, but literal mind transfer. Other distinction: Nazi X, another Hitler clone, is a separate entity based on copies of Hitler's mind.

Based on these universally accepted constants, and other supporting evidence, this page should be merged with the main Otto Octavius page.

Nausiated (talk) 18:27, December 10, 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the pages should stay separate because the new Otto refers to the old Otto as if he is a different person. The fact that he was disgusted with the other Otto's decision to save spider-man shows that he considers him a different person. Initially there would not have been a distinction between Ben and Peter either. There is nothing that that shows that the original Doc Ock can't potentially be revived and until its stated that Otto can't be revived because his soul is in the new body, they should be considered different characters. (Scarey2243 (talk) 00:20, January 13, 2019 (UTC))

Whether or not that was a clone or not, the real Doc Ock was brought back through supernatural means replacing whoever was in the clone body. Thus, I think either they should be merged or this should take off from when he and his body respawned. --(grovel678) (talk) 05:41, March 25, 2020 (UTC)
We expanded on this argument on the "duplicate"'s talk page, and tl;dr they most likely should be merged. HipperMario (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement