Talk:Doop (character)

LGBT Doop

Should Doop be counted as LGBT? He is genderless and an alien... (see Shatterstar)

In one issue of X-Statix, he indicates that he thinks of himself as male, and in a recent I (Heart) Marvel issue he is shown to be involved with both a man and a woman. This has only been addressed recently, and in a comic X-Statix fans might not have expected to pick up. --Chris Griswold 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

??? Expected? Anywho, since Doop has dated a man and a woman, he is technically bisexual. Lots42 13:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Doop Speak: Vanity

The Doop Speak is a clear vanity piece. It's obscure, not notable information that is not known outside a very narrow group of fans. It should be removed. 136.142.158.17 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Very cute. You should really try to see that the AfD of the Telefact article is not a personal slight. The translator section is notable; it explains that itself. Plus, it's cited. By "narrow group of fans," you are essentially talking about WP:CMC, one of the most well-organized groups on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, take it up there. --Chris Griswold 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, its just Wikipedia's own guidelines. That section is vanity, plain and simple. Stop bringing up another article that is unrelated to the topic at hand just to direct discussion away from a valid discussion about a vanity piece.24.3.59.222 04:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think "vanity" means in this instance? If you believe it to be vanity because I have edited the article, I would ask you to take a look at the page discussing vanity articles again; people can actually work on their own articles, but the work must be notable and cited. You may consider the Doop character to be obscure, but the character appears in millions of comic books. One of the distinguishing aspects of the character is that he speaks in an alien language. That it was translated is significant, and the inclusion of such information approaches the material from an "out-of-world" perspective, something that the Wikipedia Manual of Style strongly advises editors to do, particularly in order to justify the fair use of the fictional material discussed. Additionally, the section is well cited. --Chris Griswold 06:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, while you are noting how wonderfully you cite sources, I would like to address that as of July 27, 2006 Doop had only appeared in 38 comics, not including reprints, which falls far short of your cited "millions". [1]. As an avid comic reader myself, I'm fairly certain that Marvel has not spewed forth the pre-requisite 1,999,968 comics necessary to support your claim in the past four months. -- User:theblart

Oh, that's right: I forgot that Marvel only prints one copy of each issue now. It really sucks having to share, doesn't it? Marvel Zombies #5 is next in my Netflix queue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Laughing

I've gotten the impression that Doop is somehow capable of manipulating the morals of his teammates for the worse by cracking jokes. I wonder if I am onto something real or just original research. Would be very noteable if true. Lots42 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cor,

this shit is written badly

If you are talking about the main article, please give more details. Lots42 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)