Talk:Power Girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Superman This article is part of WikiProject Superman. The purpose of this project is to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on and/or related to Superman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Buxom Girl

I notice the section mentioning Buxom Girl was removed. Is it not fairly standard to include appearances of the character in other media? Admittedly, it probably should be more of a linked entry, but I didn't really have enough information onhand to build a proper entry. -Fuzzy 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's standard to include such appearances. I suspect what was at issue was whether Buxom Girl was really an appearance of Power Girl in "other media." I'm not familiar with BG, but I suspect she has less in common with PG than does JLU's Galatea. --Joe Sewell 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think more investigation needs to be done re: Wally Wood as creator. I think he designed the costume, but Gerry Conway wrote the issue in quesiton and Ric Estrada was co-artist with Wood. Anyone else have info or thoughts on this? Dyslexic agnostic 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Dstorres, why does the main photo of Power Girl change daily? Dyslexic agnostic 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the current image should be changed. Alex Ross can't draw women, they always end up looking like Charles Xavier with boobs. --24.81.74.173 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm agree with that, she looks powerful but not like a girl. --Simon Le Bon (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tangent Comics

I reverted a note on the Tangent Power Girl, but it might be interesting to add this "officially" to all the Tangent characters. --Joe Sewell 16:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Merge Galatea (Justice League Unlimited) into Power Girl

(Disclaimer: I wasn't the one who added the merge box, but I'm the first one with an opinion, I guess.)

  • Do Not Merge The two characters are related only by appearance. Granted, Tea's article is short, but it reflects accurately the amount of information the show gave about her -- little to none. She isn't the DCAU Power Girl, so I see no good reason to merge. --Joe Sewell 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge - per above. —Lesfer (talk/@) 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Galatea is a clone of Supergirl and Power Girl is Supergirl's counterpart, so I just think they should merge the two. --jokauff 2:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Galatea is the DCAU version of Power Girl, but with a different origin, just as Bizarro's origin has been changed to being a clone. The creators of the show wanted to use Power Girl but didn't want to get into the alternate universe aspect of it. Her appearance is based on Power Girl's: white costume (A rarity among superheroes), short blond hair, and a larger bustline that is emphasized in both the comics and the TV series. Galatea and Power Girl are both connected to Supergirl and have confused memories of their pasts. Additionally, she's only in a few episodes, making her a pretty minor character to have her own article. --Chris Griswold 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge I'm convinced, per the discussions below. TheronJ 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Merge and keep a redirect. Do the same thing for Hro Talak and Katar Hol, for that matter. TheronJ 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (I know this is a dead letter now, but I just noticed that an anonymous editor had changed my vote back to merge.[1] Wierd. TheronJ 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Do Not Merge but mention the possibility that they're intended as variants in each article. The Justice League Unlimited comic, while obviously not always "canon" to the show, has shown a Power Girl. If some future expansion of the animated universe makes Galatea more like Power Girl, then merge. But at the moment they're as alike as... well, Supergirl and Power Girl.D1Puck1T 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
So then you think Galatea is just a different version of Power Girl? Cool. I agree. --Chris Griswold 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he meant that PG and Galatea are as alike as Supergirl & PG. Now don't suggest we merge Galatea into Supergirl. --Joe Sewell 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't twist my words like that Chris Griswold. What I said is that Galatea and Power Girl are about as alike as Supergirl and Power Girl. There's a hole in Galatea's shirt and her origin makes her vaguely an alternate Supergirl. I think the character needs a bit more in common with Power Girl than that to be considered an "other media" version. As it stands they don't even have the same name.D1Puck1T 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
So do you mean that Power Girl and Galatea are like two alternate Earth versions of each other just like Power Girl and Supergirl? --Chris Griswold 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I would not put it that way. Power Girl is an alternate Earth version of Supergirl. Galatea is a clone of an alternate Earth version of Supergirl. Galatea has some similar qualities to Power Girl, but they are far outnumbered by the differences.D1Puck1T 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Galatea is a clone of Supergirl, not of an alternate Earth version of her. She's still one step removed. The creators of the show wanted to use Power Girl but didn't want to get into the alternate universe aspect of it. Her appearance is based on Power Girl's: white costume (A rarity among superheroes), short blond hair, and a larger bustline that is emphasized in both the comics and the TV series. Galatea and Power Girl are both connected to Supergirl and have confused memories of their pasts. So what are the differences? One is a clone? That's how they explain doppelganger characters in modern superhero comics and cartoons. See: Bizarro. Please. Name more differences. --Chris Griswold 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Bizarro. Originally created in comics with a "copy ray", first by a forgetable mad scientist, then recreated by Luthor. Brought into the DC Animated series as a clone. The two origins are quite similar - one uses a copy ray and makes Luthor the second person to bring Bizarro to life, the other uses cloning technology and makes him the first. Moreover, various bizarros have been made using cloning technology in the books (off the top of my head there was a Bizarro-Superboy in that character's title), so it's hardly that big a change between the books and animated show. Furthermore the animated Bizarro's motivations and actions are well in keeping with various versions the comic version. Both versions turned on Luthor, angry at being imperfect. Both have tried to do Superman's job, but did it all wrong. Both act basically the same. Now look at Power Girl. Now certainly you could argue that Galatea's being a clone is analagous to Power Girl's being from an alternate earth. IMHO it's more of stretch than comparing a "duplicating ray" and cloning technology, but if that was the only difference I'd have no problems. But it's not remotely the only difference. Aside from not even having the same name, the two characters have quite different motivations. Galatea works for and was made by Cadmus, specifically by Dr. Hamilton. She seems to care for Hamilton - perhaps seeing him as a father, although I grant that there's precious little to go on. She's an assassin and a murderer. She's extremely loyal to the U.S. government and Cadmus. She clearly hates the Justice League, in particular Supergirl, possibly because she doesn't like Supergirl in her head. She has a psychic link with Supergirl because they're clones. No memories of Krypton, whether real or "magically implanted by an Atlantean magician" or whatever. Her feelings about Superman are not stated - she's never met him or expressed any interest in meeting him. None of that has anything to do with Power Girl, and it's basically all we've been shown about Galatea. If she didn't have a circle cut in her top there'd be no debate. EDIT: Regarding the "emphasized bustline". Galatea's bustline may be bigger than animated Supergirl's, but it's no bigger than, say, animated Zatanna's. Moreover, you brought up their having "confused memories" as something in common. Galatea's memories were never confused, she always knew where she was from. She had some problems dealing with the psychic link to Supergirl, but she always knew her origin.D1Puck1T 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's called an adaptation. For instance, in the recent X-Men movie, Jamie Madrox is in the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. But he's the same character. Callisto has completely different powers. The same character. Sometimes when writers want to use a character in an adaptation, they have to change some aspects in the transition: origin, motivation, appearance, name. But it can still be the same character. On the X-Men animated series, the character Changeling is called Morph. It's still the same character. --Chris Griswold 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Where you see adaptation, I see characters that are too different to consider one an "other media" version of the other. Clearly we have different opinions on how different two characters have to be from one another to consider one an "adaptation". In the case of movie Madrox, we did not get a great deal of information about that character, but we did find out his name - Jamie Madrox. So of course he's an alternate version. With Changling and Morph, it has been established in the books that "Morph" is a name used by some alternate reality versions of the character. Galatea and Power Girl do not share the same name, the same background, the same alliances, the same morals, the same "family and friends", or the same motivations. Heck, Galatea enjoys killing people for the U.S. government. If at some point the Animated Universe is expanded on and Galatea chooses to call herself "Power Girl", or heck, even if she just joins the JLU or JSA and starts calling Superman "cousin", then by all means merge the articles. As it stands, I believe there's enough in common to justify what's currently in the "in other media" section, but not enough to justify merging the articles. I do understand what you are basing your opinion on, and I do believe you have very valid points, but again I think it comes down to us simply having a different opinion as to how similiar two characters must be in order to merge their articles.D1Puck1T 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Though I disagree, I respect your opinion. --Chris Griswold 08:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge Gotta go with Joe Sewell on this one. CovenantD 06:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Gee, it sounds like I disappointed you. :) --Joe Sewell 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. It means that I think you presented the most cogent reasoning. It's a compliment. CovenantD 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just kidding with you. Thanks for the compliment! --Joe Sewell 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge Characters are distinct. AlGorup 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per ChrisGriswold's arguments above. LexiMoore 7:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge I agree that the similarities between Galatea and Power Girl are tangential at best, while the differences are quite significant. That Galatea's appearance may be an homage to Power Girl does not, to me, support removing the distinction between the characters. I would naturally reconsider if Galatea eventually took on the Power Girl persona. --DavidK93 12:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge Exvicious 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that the Galatea article shouldn't exist, but it's just where they should be merged. either the JLU or Power Girl. i don't think it really matters.161.38.222.14 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that a merge vote? You have a point, though: We could merge several minor JLU characters into one article. --Chris Griswold 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge for the same reason that Joe Sewell had said. Ðra 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Usually I'm all for mergers, but this time I must vote do not merge. Dyslexic agnostic 06:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge - if Galeta becomes Power Girl, then we can reconsider. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge - Galatea and Power Girl are two completely seperate characters, and the DCAU has created original characters before. The only similarities are visual. DiegoTehMexican 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nine days after the first comment, it stands at 10-4 to not merge. CovenantD 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we be done with this? It is obvious what the consensus is. --Chris Griswold 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge They only look alike. But for that reason, many fans interpret Galatea as an analogue to Power Girl. SpaceCaptain 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CLOSED WITH NO MERGE CovenantD 15:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wally Wood/PG breast size info

Thanks for the citation to the Wood story, Chris. I know this is going to sound like incredible nit-picking, but I have yet to read anything that definitively convinces me that this is what Wood actually did, or intended to do. For example, a definitive citiation would be a statement to this effect spoken by Wood himself during an interview, or a statement Wood might have made about this in a letter. However, all versions of this story involve someone else saying that this is what Wood told them he was doing. Can we slightly revise the entry to reflect this, for example by saying something like: "Many of Wally Wood's friends recount that he told them he intended to draw ..."?--Galliaz 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still looking. I asked another columnist who wrote about it where she was asble to verify it, but she has not written back yet. I will do the same for Comic Books 101. --Chris Griswold 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTCThe )

The Justice League Unlimited Supergirl isn't Kara Zor-El. Her name is Kara In-ze ,alias Kara Kent. And she's closely related to superman except for shared species.

Actually, Supergirl in Justice League Unlimited is not even the same speices. She is from planet Argo.

This information can be found in the All-Star Companion by Roy Thomas

[edit] Disputing link removal

Since Power Girl's physical attributes are a part of this article, I felt this link was perfectly legitimate. Why was this removed from the External links as a blog while the blog site moviepoopshoot.com link is kept? I'm puzzled. 23skidoo 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physical depiction (Breast size)

Any truly encyclopedic article on Power Girl must address the funbags. I've referenced Dave's Long Box again - but only as demonstration that the admittedly undocumented Wally Wood story is indeed "widely circulated". - User:Ribonucleic 00:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I don't see the value of any of the material you've added, and am in favor of excising it entirely. (1)Just because it's widely circulated doesn't mean the Wood story needs to be repeated here, especially since it's unsubstantiated. (2) The scenario from Kingdom Come is just plain juvenile.--Galliaz 00:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I feel strongly enough about this, and have stated my reasons above, I'm going to make the deletion.--Galliaz 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see where your objection is coming from. That the character's breasts are a prominent, if not defining, aspect of the character - to the extent of being referenced in other DC comics! - I have documented with what are now 8 sources. That this adds value to the article is clear enough to me. And unless you can point to a specific Wikipedia policy that I am contravening [please remember that your personal artistic judgment "the epilogue to Kingdom Come was juvenile" does not invalidate it as a source, and that Wally Wood - being dead - is not covered under the sensitivity to Living Persons clauses], I will respectfully ask you to express your disapproval here rather than a wholesale censoring of the article. Ribonucleic 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ribonucleic, I'm always willing to engage in discussion and explain my actions and where I'm coming from. However, please don't accuse me of censoring the entry. That's not what I've done here, (nor is it something I've ever done at the wikipedia). My main point: I'm not opposed to a sensible, discreet, analytical discussion of how the PG's body has been portrayed over the years in the entry. However, your additions don't even come close to doing this. Now, let me state the reasons why I'm opposed to your addition, in the hopes of furthering discussion and improving the entry. (1) I don't like sexism, and don't think the entry should dabble in it, or perptuate it. PG's breast size is already referenced in the entry, and anyone looking at the images can make conclusions about PG's physical attributes. And while I'll agree with you that PG's breasts comprise a character attribute, I reject your contention that they are the character's defining attribute: it's sexist to frame things in those terms. (One additional point: although your use of the term "funbags" here is offensive, I'll limit myself to discussing what you've placed in the entry itself.) (2) It doesn't matter how many versions of the Wood story we can cite or direct readers to, the story is still unsubstantiated. I've commented on this above (under "Wally Wood/Breast Size Info"), and won't repeat my reasoning, here. What I will say is that reading the recent JSA TPB (which includes PG's earliest appearances) has reinforced my belief that this story is an "urban legend." (3) I can't accept that a joke/story from Kingdom Come that solely serves as a delivery vehicle for the juvenile "Breast" punchline enhances the entry, and would be interested to know if others agree/disagree with me.--Galliaz 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


My use of the word "censoring" was uncalled for - and I hope you will accept my apology. If I offended with the word "funbags", I'll apologize for that as well. That said, in reply to your points: 1) If there is any sexism in the article as I have edited it, I propose that the sexism is in inherent in the subject itself (i.e. the drawing of the character and widespread fan response to it) - not in my presentation of it. To use an analogy: while it might be sexist to publish a magazine with photographs of naked women, it is not "perpetuating" that sexism to neutrally report that this magazine is being published or that people are buying it and looking at the pictures. And unless I'm missing something, there is no other mention of her bust in the article - apart from the somewhat odd phrase "distinctive cleavage window". 2) The Wood story is a colorful and illustrative aspect of the general perception of the character and her history. And the fact that it is undocumented - which I prominently state - does not reduce its value in that respect. The existence of a second shooter in the Kennedy assassination is also undocumented. But an encyclopedic treatment of the subject would have to (and does - in the Wikpedia article) acknowledge that it has been widely speculated on. 3) I repeat my earlier statement that your esthetic distaste for the chicken sandwich joke does not invalidate its legitimacy as a source or lessen its illustrative value. The Dave's Long Box link contains many other examples from DC comics. If you would like to substitute one of them for the present one, that's fine with me. Ribonucleic 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. In defense of my contention that fixation on the character's breasts is a very prominent, if not definitive, aspect of fan response to the character, I'll point out that the linked Dave's Long Box article (which is titled "BOOB WAR CLIMAX!") comes up second in 83,000,000+ matches for "Power Girl" in a Google search - not counting the very Wikipedia article we are discussing. [There are also those 4 documented sources I provided. More available on request.] You are entitled to feel offended by whatever sexism you perceive in that phenomenon. But a neutral acknowledgment that it exists is both encyclopedic and not in violation of any Wikipedia principle that you have been prepared to demonstrate. Ribonucleic 03:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What makes Dave's Long Box a notable critic? Blogs are usually not considered to be good sources. CovenantD 03:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have never claimed he is a "notable critic". I have cited him twice: 1. As an example of how the Wood story is "widely-circulated". 2. As an example of commentary on the character's breasts by comics fans. I do not see how a blog is unsuitable for either of those purposes.Ribonucleic 03:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you need to read this WP:RS#Self-published_sources. CovenantD 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I see your point. It says "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking". However, WP:Reliable_sources states "that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion." I have provided the primary source.Ribonucleic 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Maybe I can put it more simply. I have only cited Dave in support of the statement that the Wood story is widely circulated [because there he is circulating it] and in support of the statement that comics fans talk about Power Girl's breasts [because there he is talking about them]. That he circulated the story and talked about the breasts are facts as defined in WP:Reliable_sources - and they are facts that I have documented from the primary source.Ribonucleic 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
RN, Thanks for your response. The point is not that your addition offended me. My main point remains that your addition (as it stands now) is sexist in tone: bringing it to a close with a joke about a portion of the character's body is problematic in the extreme. More importantly, your underlying point that PG's breast size actually defines the character is part of the problem. Especially since the creators wrote her as a feminist, gave her great physical strenth, and provided her with an in-your-face attitude: these attributes are as prominent as is her cup size. (If a section of an encyclopedia entry reduces a complex character to a single physical attribute, I see this as a problem.) As a historian, I'm uneasy with your argument that since fans love to repeat the Wood story, the PG wikipedia entry has to repeat it, too. Especially since, as I've stated above, the evidence points towards the opposite conclusion. Finally, I'll say again: I'm not opposed to a sensible, discreet, fact-based, and analytical discussion of how PG's body has been portrayed over the years in the entry.--Galliaz 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With the goal of addressing your most recent arguments, I have eliminated the Physical Depiction section entirely and incorporated its salient points into a single sentence the Costume section: 1) There is no longer a joke - or the added emphasis of a separate section. 2) My personal opinion as expressed in the Discussion section aside, the article makes no claim about the significance of the breasts to the character as a whole - other than that comics fans talk about them (which I have documented with three primary sources). If you are going to dispute the relevance of the fact that fans talk about them, I will ask you to directly address the fact I raised earlier: that the Dave's Long Box article has such a high Google page rank. In numerical terms, the presidential-succession equivalent of this high a ranking would be, approximately, Alberto Gonzales. Therefore, as I see it, an article about Power Girl that doesn't make some reference to this aspect of fan response would be as unencyclopedic as an article about Alberto Gonazales that doesn't mention he's Attorney General of the United States. 3) I make no mention of the Wood story - since people can find it in any of its widely-circulated locations if they want. In making these changes, the Dave's Long Box article is now used to establish a fact [i.e. the other DC comics mentions] other than the expression of his own opinions. But since he provides pictures of the actual panels, I believe this - in conjunction with the high Google ranking - clears the bar for being a reliable source. Ribonucleic 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Even popular bloggers don't qualify as verifiable or reliable sources -- if you can find a blogger who has also been published (Michael Chabon or Kurt Busiek, say), they might qualify under the "published expert, writing within his or her field" exception. Which is fair, since there is good (if unreliable) evidence that the Wood story is hooey.[2]


That said, we ought to be able to say something about PG's breasts. Is there anyone here who doesn't agree that they're one of PG's visually defining traits? IMHO, the current version contrasting PG's Altantean look with her Kingdom Come look is pretty good, but might run into some original research and verifiability down the road. Thanks, TheronJ 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

sigh... At present, the only citation of Dave's blog is in support of my statement that the character's breasts are referenced in other DC comics. If the people concerned about this citation will take the trouble to visit the page in question, they will see that it is not simply Dave asserting this. He has reproduced the panels that support my statement. So unless someone is prepared to allege that those panels are forgeries, I am asserting that this web page functions as a primary source for my statement. Ribonucleic 15:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the only reason this is garnering so much attention is the fact that the character is female and attractive. I don't think there's ever been a details section on Superman's physique. A gx7 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I add Breast size to the tittle of this section because is a fact that the main discussion here is how to describe the character's boobs size, but nobody has talked (i.e.) over the changes on her hair cut.--Simon Le Bon (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power Woman

When was she known by this codename?

In Kingdom Come (comic book).--Trademark123 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breasts (again)

My position is simple: the entry should state the obvious about the character's cup size w/o going on to redundant lengths about it, as I believe Chris McFeeley's recent edit did. I simply don't think this particular sentence added anything to the entry: Any discussion of Power Girl's costume or physicality is pointless without first establishing one key point - she is consistently depicted, by any and all artists who render her, as having particularly large breasts, even by comic book standards. CM's edit seemed especially pointless to me because the entry already states that the character is depicted as a buxom woman--it doesn't ignore, try to hide, or minimize this obvious point.--Galliaz 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, gents! Didn't bother to check the talk page to see that this had been hashed out already. I've made a bit of an edit anyway, just to separate out the summaries of her costume and her... endowment into what I think is a slightly better order. - Chris McFeely 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Fiction mentions should not be included at all in these articles.

This would be like mentioning everyone who wore a Power Girl costume for Halloween in this Wikipedia article, or mentioning a dream you had about Power Girl and including it. This is tangential and has no place here. Who cares what someone who doesn't have the mandate from DC does with the character? It's meaningless. It just dirties up article. I mean seriously-- If I write a story where Power Girl and Supergirl get it on, have my friend draw it, NOT get it published, should i mention it in this article? Cause that's what you're subjecting us to. Some fantasy wank that you're doing something that's credit worthy.Superscript text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagary66 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, generally I agree wit the above. Fanfic is almost always going to be non-notable.
However, if someone can show that the fic is notable, aside from "a fan wrote this", then the argument can be made to include it. But we would be talking about things like: DC sued over it and it got coverage, DC bought it and re-published it, it started a writer's/artist's/actor's/director's carrier, or the like. - J Greb (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this, so I'm not sure how to reply and make it look properly, but I've been taking umbrage with someone who keeps adding that Power Girl's first actual appearance in another medium is a fan film by XXX. This just doesn't fly. That's not an "actual" appearance. If she were sued by DC, that would be one thing, but this isn't the case. This is someone tied to the "film" who likes seeing their name on Wikipedia. Regarding it started a person's career, then keep it on the actor/filmmaker's entry.--Vagary66 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding formatting, colons (":") at the start of the paragraph cause the indentations. AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a few things:
  • The non-codified consensus follows your main point: "First appearance outside of comics" tends to default to licensed production.
  • If it is someone attached to the fanfic, then they are going counter to the conflict of interest guidelines. They should leave it to others to bring the material in.
  • The notability of the fanfic being a carrier launcher runs both ways. Especially with second tier characters.
- J Greb (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points here...

  1. I'm not connected in any way to Chris Notarlie or Blinky Productions.
  2. I wasn't the person who originally put the note about the film into the article.
  3. It's a fanfilm, not a fanfic--it's somewhat different to note that this is the only place she's appeared in any live-action format than to say that something's the first fanfiction she appeared in. It's not like we're talking about someone who just threw some crappy smut story about PG screwing Blue Beetle or something; these are professionally-produced short films. (For the record, Notarlie's fanfilms are apparently held in high esteem in the comics industry; his latest DC-based fanfilm includes a screenplay written by Gail Simone.)
  4. The information was added following the consensus reached in the discussion on the talkpage to the old articles on the fanfilms themselves, as a compromise whereby inclusionists wouldn't contest the deletion of the fanfilm articles, while the deletionists would accept the brief mention on the main Power Girl page. I can't look those discussions up myself, as deleted pages can only be reviewed by admins.

As near as I can tell, this was a special case. While I acknowledge that consensus can change, unless there's a policy or guideline arguement brought forth in the next twelve hours or so, I'll be bold and change it back to the previous status quo pending the discussion deciding on a new consensus. Is that acceptable to everyone? Rdfox 76 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise there is a functional difference between fanfilm and prose, but not a whole lot. Both are still fans taking their own time to produce stories featuring their favorite characters out side of the control of the company that owns the characters. In this case the fanfic happens to be a film.
Based on what you've presented, and if there's a reliable source that the industry's view of her work, then there is a good argument for a one or two line inclusion.
Lastly, you may want to post on the Comics project talk to get an admin to dredge up the deal from the deleted fanfilm article so it can be re-posted here to support the inclusion of the mention. - J Greb (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think taste should be a consideration on the character page. There are plenty of crappy stories published by DC and great ones that haven't been published-- it's the publishing that makes it "real." For example-- I personally don't like the Teen Titans cartoon OR fan-films of any sort-- difference being, that the Teen Titans cartoon is licensed by DC and the fan films are not. We don't mention the "Twilight Of The Super Heroes" story outline Alan Moore submitted to DC outside of an article on itself here on Wiki because DC decided not to make it. It's a compelling story idea, though by a major artist in the field, and I don't think it deserves mention in anything. What makes these ideas/stories/films have any credence is DC publishing it, condoning it, putting their stamp of approval on it. Everything else is just wanking. It's like saying, "wouldn't it be cool if--". If this isn't the way it's been done in the comic book wikis, then let's do it this way from now on, and leave a link in the link area for fan films, nudie drawings, and other masturbatory outings.--Vagary66 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was the first person to add this to the article (as well as the now deleted fan film articles) and I also have no connection with Blinky Productions. The notability in this case is due to the fact that the fan film was the first and, so far, only appearance of the character in other media. In notability terms, this is slightly higher than a mention on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which was also not published by DC but you do not seem to have a problem with it. The existence of Category:Fan films suggests that fan films can be notable (as opposed to the lack of a relevant Category:Nudie drawings, to use your own example). Lastly, this article is about the character, not necessarily about DC's publishing history. Notable relevant events can take place outside of the authority of the publisher. AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the mention of Power Girl thing for Buffy, but since the character is not really known outside of comic book circles and Buffy was very popular, I thought it notes reference. I wouldn't lift a finger if it disappeared. My problem is that the fan-film is not an appearance of Power Girl in another medium, first or otherwise. It's somebody using a character they have no right to use. Why should that be given credence? Please tell me what's so special about making a film that can't be distributed about a character you haven't any claim to? It's stolen. Category:Nudie drawings may not be a wiki entry, but Category:copyright infringement and Category:intellectual property sure are. I've proven I have very little better to do than safeguard Power Girls' wikipedia entry-- truth be told, I don't even like the character that much but I was inflamed to see such masturbation in an entry. You don't see it in Superman or Batman's entries who have been the subject of WAY more fan-films because more people are policing them.--Vagary66 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please look through the article attached to this template {{Batman fan films}}. The fanfic, or vanity, films, where notable, do wind up with articles or article space. For that matter, unlicensed ones do as well, see Superman in popular culture#Film and television and the film section under Superman in popular culture#Parodies.
Second, depending on the circumstances, unlicensed material does get distribution that does generate notability. This can be anything from a student film to some thing like Star Trek: New Voyages where the producers cut a deal in lieu of a normal licensing agreement. Just because the owner of the intellectual property didn't get a cut doesn't make a film or story automatically non-notable.
That being said, the film has to have something beyond just "First vid to surface with a flesh and blood actress portraying Power Girl." If it's got that, and it can be cited, it's got a place in an article about the character in a general use encyclopedia. - J Greb (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You must have something to do with the film cause you keep adding that bull to the entry. save it for your fan-blog. It's not an 'actual' appearance. It's masturbation.--Vagary66 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be wary of describing it as Power Girl's first appearance on film. If it isn't licensed it isn't Power Girl, it's just at best an homage and at worst a copyright violation. If the information is of note, present it neutrally, mentioning that a fan film was made featuring a Power Girl character. Hiding T 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, where are the deletion debates referred to above. If the articles were merged, they should not have been deleted, that's a violation of the GFDL. Hiding T 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The principal debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Girl: The Classifieds
AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic that only officially licensed appearances can appear on Wikipedia. A copyright-violating appearance is still an actual appearance of the character and may or may not be notable depending on the specific case. There are, for example, several Batman fan films with their own articles, which also all violate copyright but have passed the notability test. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AdamBMorgan has the most important point in this particular debate. Thus far, those arguing to delete the reference are claiming only that it is non-notable purely because it is non-licensed; the existance of entire categories of articles about nonlicensed fanfilms and other nonlicensed character appearances that have already passed notability reviews shows that this is faulty reasoning. (If you disagree, please show me where, exactly, in WP:N or WP:FICT it specifies that an unlicensed use of a character is automatically non-notable.)
As for finding a reliable source within the comics industry that can provide information on how Notarlie's films are received within the industry, that won't happen because of the vagaries of US copyright law. If someone at DC officially acknowledges his films in any way, the law requires that DC must then immediately sue him for trademark infringement (and possibly character copyright infringement, but last I knew, no character copyright had ever been upheld in court), or else they automatically lose the rights to any and all characters he's used in his films. As a result, DC has two choices--they can either publicly pretend not to know his films exist (their rights are protected so long as nobody who might challenge them can prove they knew of a violation/infringement), or they can waste a fortune suing him over something that's really just free publicity--and is a suit they might actually risk losing, anyway. Ergo, you're not going to get anything official out of them.
I agree with Hiding, though, that we should probably be more neutral in the language regarding the fanfilms, though. How about this as an alternative? "Despite the similarity of Galatea, Power Girl herself has not yet appeared in any officially licensed production, live-action or animated; however, a series of fan films based on the character, made by Blinky Productions and starring Tawnya Manion, beginning in 2005, have been generally well-received by the character's fanbase." Does that sound reasonable to you guys? Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just create a section called "apocrypha" and put all our fantasies down? I can discuss Power Girl making love to The Scarlet Witch in a picture I drew. Yes, I'm mixing up characters from different universes. Why not? It's a fan Pic! A Fan Fic! A Fan Flick! Woo Hoo! --Vagary66 (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to just remind you of a few of the Wikipedia guidelines here, rather than make any attempt to rebut that. First off, your entire argument there, since it doesn't address any of my comments in the first paragraph of the post you're replying to, boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which, as it says on the link, is not a valid argument on Wikipedia; since the discussion hasn't shown any consensus on this issue, you need to either address a guideline or policy that is directly on point, or make an attempt to find an acceptable compromise. Secondly, I highly recommend that you review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; you seem not to be following these very well in this last post. Rdfox 76 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Saw this over at the talk for WikiProject Comics, so I'll add in my two cents (throws two cents into cesspool). First, I don't think DC would be required by law to sue for copyright infringement. I mean, I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think they have to. They most likely would, to save face and to protect their copyrights, but I don't think they're required. For example, J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, knows about fanfics concerning Harry Potter. She has even read some. Yet she doesn't sue the authors or the websites, because they're not making money off of it. Now, if this guy was making money off of his fanfilms, then it's a different matter, but if he's just distributing them online, I don't think they're required legally to sue.
Now, as for the main topic. Fanfilms, in general, should not be considered as notable. They are not readily available to the general public, and they're not licensed. However, if a fanfilm, or fanfiction story for that matter, gets notable media attention that can be used as verifiable sources, than it would be considered notable enough to mention in the article, if not its own article. And what's this about not appearing? She basically appeared in Justice League Unlimited, as Galatea, clone of Supergirl. She may not have been called Power Girl, but Bruce Timm said that was their version of Power Girl. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powergirl = Nightwing or Flamebird?

The article says that in "One Year Later" Powergirl was Flamebird. The accompanying picture says she was Nightwing. Which is it? --220.253.116.195 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)