Talk:Wonder Woman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Quote or move any sections that are still relevant.

Previous discussions:

[edit] SHB image

I have to admit, I like the new image better than the old one. What were the concerns last time? - jc37 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the new one too. I was just backing up the request for discussion. It was pretty obnoxious for an anonymous user to keep reverting without answering a simple request for discussion. Doczilla 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Well that's two of us, who else wants to comment? : ) - jc37 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well since I uploaded it, I naturally liked it better. But then some rude anons kept making it an edit war. But if people (registered, civil users) like the two of you like it, I see don't see a problem :) NeoCoronis 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the white/clear BG of the current image, though I think the sparkles of the new one give a very accurate and historical feel to the image (and yes, my brain is singing the Lynda Carter show theme song now...). My req for discussion was that last time we tried to change it, it became a knockdown, drag out fight (see above) with people arguing the merits/flaws of images and which was more representative of WW. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with the new "sparkly" WW pic? NeoCoronis

Nope. I like it. Since there was apparently a previous edit war over the SHB image, it would be prudent to wait until either a couple more people weigh in or a few more days pass. And when there has been an edit war, anonymous posters can't be the ones to make the definitive move to the sparkly blue. People should wait and let you do it. Doczilla 05:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I like both, though I do prefer the white/clear BG of the current image also. Is it possible to see a white background version of the other? Grey Shadow | Talk 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that I like the background aside, I don't know if it's a good idea to play with a fair use image that way. - jc37 06:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Grey Shadow | Talk 06:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
My only concern about a white background is that then the sparkles would be less apparent. Also, I'm glad that everyone seems to like the "sparkly Wonder Woman", just wish the anons would quit re-posting it (they're tainting it with their rudeness). Would anyone have a problem if I used the new pic for the SHB or should we wait a little more? NeoCoronis 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this the most recognizable depiction of Wonder Woman? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, you have WW in her classic costume (with some minor alterations) so the comic readers can easily recognize her, and then you have her doing the sparkly spin-chnage from the TV series, so people who've seen the TV Wonder Woman would recognize her too. Also, I think the pic has that "iconic" feel to it (but that is just my opinion. Like Ipstenu, I kept thinking of the Wonder Woman theme-song when I looked at it). NeoCoronis 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delays

Since it's a rather significant issue to readers of late, I think the article should address the publishing delays since the reboot - with a neutral POV, of course. It's a touchy subject, I think, so I thought I'd open up a discussion before any edits are made. -- VanPelt101 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What citation can you provide that it's a "significant issue?" CovenantD 22:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I was going to cite among other things, his own comments on his webspace, but he's since removed them. So I guess I'll leave this one be for now. My point was simply that he must ahve been getting a lot of responses to feel the need to post, but no big, I guess.VanPelt101 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] graphic novels

I noticed a minor edit war concerning the inclusion of a list of WW graphic novel titles, so as a compromise to the parties involved, I've created Wonder Woman literature. It could probably be expanded, or even integrated into Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, but it's good information nonetheless. —scarecroe 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wonder Woman's Power

I think we can just delete that article. Everything pertinent is already in this one. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - That article doesn't really contain any new information not contained in this article. Instead of creating a new article for Wonder Woman's powers from scratch, the current abilities section in this article should be split into a separate article if it ever becomes too large.--Trademark123 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

DELETE It's all already in this article ... SSJ 5 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've deleted the superfluous article, we have to look at the info here on Wonder Woman's power. Unlike the rest of this article, the power section acts as if wonderwoman were a singular and uncontested concept. We should not say "Wonder woman has the power to heal herself by merging with the earth" but instead something like "STarting with so and so comics and occasionally/rarely after, wonder woman is depicted merging with the earth to heal herself." Most of these powers are frequently ignored by many comic artists, even the lasso of truth is often ommited. And while I'm at it, why is Kingdom Come neccessarily non cannonical? It's by DC. Lots of things ought to be considered cannon in wonder woman but make no sense or contradict other comics that also probably should be considered cannon. 66.41.66.213 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of such, too much of this article treats the Perez run as universal Wonder Woman.

Agreed- at the least, the powers & weapons section should detail each version's powers separatedly. Also, this section (and the article overall) could use some trimming, there's too many details. - Wilfredo Martinez 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert quagmire

I'm posting this here as well as on the relevent editor's talk page.

Regarding the points you are trying to under cut, yes under cut:
  • "Diana possesses a host of superhuman powers granted to her by the gods and goddesses of Olympus, gifts which have been stated to be equal to their own abilities." -- The section "...to be equal to their own..." is a paraphrase from the citation immediately following the sentences. Specifically: "The Grecian gods commanded Hippolyta to carve the child of her dreams from clay-- --then brought the infant to life, gifting the Princess Diana with powers and abilities equal to their own." (emphasis added) 52 -- Week 12 (July 26, 2006), "The Origin of Wonder Woman", page 1, caption 2 of panel 3 and caption 1 of panel 4. It is a statement of equity, no hedging.
  • "...strength and durability equals or surpasses her own, such as..." -- Since the Grecian gods are mentioned in the list "equals or" is extremely appropriate, if not mandatory (see above point). Further, elimination of that phrase puts the character in the unenviable position of either being the weakest of the strong, or strongest of the weak.
  • "However, even in those cases, her martial prowess has enabled her to garner victories." -- inclusion of the phrase "on occasion" and and substituting "a victory" for "victories" gives the sentence a connotation of this being an uncommon, if not rare, event.
As per the citation linked to the passage, the text of the first two points should be restored to what it was prior to you edit. As for the third point, if you have a citation that spells out the character rarely winning against opponents her physical equal or superior through martial skills, add it, otherwise this point should be reverted as well.

At this point I'm going to leave it up to the editor in question to review this and decide if his edits are really adding value or undermining the article.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid - Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

Okay, while 'nearly' isn't listed, given the extreme levels of difference between one author and the next for any hero, it's impossible to cement that Wonder Woman is or is not stronger than anyone else in the DCU. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasels and Peacocks and Bears, oh my! :D Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with your points or mocking you, it's just that I never cease to be amazed by the ever-growing number of Wikipedia's rules. Honestly, it's come to the point I don't read them any more, and I'm very involved as a WP editor. I just go by a) providing interesting content and b) common sense. I leave the correction of details like wording to other, more capable people; that's part of the Wikipedia concept too. We should all keep that in mind. -Wilfredo Martinez 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks? The problem is you have to draw a line somewhere, like with the 'which hotties are close to being as hot as WW?' which we had earlier. If you keep adding in heroes that WW may or may not be as strong as, where do you stop? When does it become a huge list of super strong guys? When is it no longer helpful? Leaving just a couple up there is a nice example, you get the idea, and we can say 'among others' if we have to, but the implication is already there. As for using 'nearly', it's simply not true. Sometimes she's stronger, sometimes she's not. Depends on who's writing. Since my previous attempts at using logic to explain it failed, I resorted to 'rules'. It'd be nice if mr. Anon would post too, though. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

Why isn't her animation debut not mentioned in an Other Media section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.10 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

See Cultural impact of Wonder Woman. —scarecroe 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

On merging and straw polls:

  • There are times when the distinction between a DC Comics character and one of their Pre-Crisis counterparts is definitive and long-lasting (e.g.: Superman and Superman (Kal-L), warranting the need for more than one article. However, in most cases, the difference is blurry to the point when it's up to each reader or creator to forge their specific interpretation about the validity of the story when talking about a specific version of the character. "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)", "Robin (Earth-Two) and "Wonder Woman (Earth-Two)" are many among the latter cases. Inevitably, this leads to several bad things for the quality of the articles, including but not limited to: 1 - There is an extreme redundancy when one takes into the account the existance of a "Pre-Crisis" or "Earth-Two" section in the original article. 2 - Most splinter articles, unlike their "parents", are written - against Wikipedia policy - in mostly in-universe style, with barely a mention of the fictional context. 3 - Finally, the splinter articles are often created and then immediately orphaned for a long time, left with information which applies only to the original article from which most of the information was copied from (and when the appropiate information is included, it's basically three sentences which already were in the parent article). Nothing against you personally, User:Netkinetic, but I believe you're taking a suggestion that was made pertaining to a few specific characters to the extreme. There is an enourmous in-universe bias in your work (though I do not deny your good faith). Sometimes the "they're different people!" argument doesn't apply, specially when they WEREN'T different people for years, and when the divergences can be counted with one hand. --Ace ETP 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments

[edit] Flight?

Has it always been the case that Wonder Woman can fly? In Les Daniel's book 60 Years of DC, doesn't he say that she couldn't originally do so (like Superman)? If she couldn't fly at first, it would explain why she needed an invisible plane! :) - NP Chilla 09:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Flight was added to her powers as part of the 1980's revamp by George Perez. Dstumme 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, prior to the revamp, she was able to glide on wind currents, a trick most Amazon were taught during their training. It looked like flying, but it didn't work over long distances. Hence, the need for the plane/jet. Does anyone know when this was introduced? I think it was introduced after the plane was.VanPelt101 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bi-monthly

The word "bimonthly" means once every two months. Wonder Woman is currently being published twice per month and therefore this is NOT bimonthly. --Stenun 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Twice a month? No, bimonthly is correct, sadly. Heck, the hardly make THAT :P (if you can find a source for it being twice a month, please post with that) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about this source? [1]. Wonder Woman #4 being published 21st February. Wonder Woman #5 being published 14th March. Wonder Woman #6 being published 28th March. Wonder Woman #7 being published 11th April. Wonder Woman #8 being published 25th April. This does not look bimonthly to me. --Stenun 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if the publisher actually meets this schedule before we revise this portion of the entry.--Galliaz 12:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? --Stenun 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they're notable for lying to us, Stenun. However I put it in and cited it as scheduled. It's planned and 'announced' so ... we'll see. Why do I get the feeling that they're burning off the series and will cancel it? *sigh* (and I addressed how the change was the wrong way to handle the new info on Stenun's talk page, we cool). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsarama still cites her as Bimonthly - DC PREVIEWS FOR FEBRUARY 14th , 2007 -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With Jodi Picoult's run coming up, they seem to be confidant that the run will catch up. But hers is only a four issue stint, so the schedule will most likely change again. All of which convinces me further that DC made a huge mistake in dropping Gail Simone when she was tapped for the relaunch (Heinberg dropped out and then recommitted to the project at one point). Hopefully, she'll have time to take over in the near future.VanPelt101 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tintin Pantoja's Wonder Woman

Why isnt this version in the alternate versions of the character? [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.118.222.165 (talk)

Non-notable -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uebermensch

Why are Superman, Batman and Green Lantern "Uebermensch" characters? Especially Superman has nothing to do with the nietschean concept, which the linked article quite clearly states. 87.123.229.41 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i think the fact they were all men, rather than supermen, only superman is possible a ubermensch an given he based on the old jewis Golem protector story, especially given the term ubermensch connection to nazi ideology

[edit] One Year Later

Okay, so she's on new charges in Manhunter, but why was the whole mentioned removed. Her own title is not the only place she's been seen one year later (who are we kidding? she's hardly been seen there at all) and the Manhunter thing should still be mentioned.

It's not clear to me what you mean, because the plot point from Manhunter actually is mentioned in the entry.--Galliaz 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance

There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonder Woman's Weakness

Do we know of any? I typed a short paragrapgh on the page before but some punk took it off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.92.193 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cancelled storyline

There needs to be a source for the statement that DC announced the "Who is Wonder Woman" storyline was being cancelled. I had a feeling something was wrong when issue 4 ended in a cliffhanger and then issue 5 makes no referernce to it. I kept expecting a big reveal that Diana was dreaming or under hypnosis or something. Anyone know why this happened, or was this a frantic "our sales are tanking and we need to rethink" type of situation? 23skidoo 12:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

DC announced it as a press release copied on newsarama. Heinberg posted it on his myspace blog (which is spam blocked ... apologies for what follows) - http:// blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=5462973&blogID=231158852&MyToken=8e1388ef-d0e0-4759-badd-5c8991a06f04 . Is that what you were looking for? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/n/Talk%7EWonder_Woman_952e.html"