Talk:Wonder Woman

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. 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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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] —Preceding unsigned comment 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).

She gets trapped if her own "Magic Lasso" is wrapped around her, is tied up with it. 65.163.113.145 07:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people would call that a weakness, because it is universal to everyone and everything. I was looking for somethign more specific, like Superman's Kryptonite or Martin Manhunters weakness to fire.

Traditionally, she loses her powers if she gets tied up by a man, or sometimes if she gets her bracelets chained together by a man. It's all quite suspect and it used to happen remarkably often. Early stories give the impression that the Amazon's main hobby is finding someone to tie them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.187.20.243 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, these days Wonder Woman is almost invincible now. Kinda makes her a bit boring in my book, unlike Superman. She doesn't even have effective enemies. When you think of Superman, you think Lex Luthor straight away as a villian, nut with Wonder Woman it's not as straightforward. 121.216.148.12 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (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)

[edit] Format

In particular because this is a major character, it's important that this article about Wonder Woman be formatted to the WikiProject Comics editorial style and exemplars, with the sections "Publication history" and "Fictional character bioigraphy". I'm not as conversant with the characters as others, so I'll give it a stab only if better-versed editors don't get to it first. More knowledgeable editors would be preferable, obviously.--Tenebrae 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies

Wonder Woman has been parodied by Sarah Michelle Gellar for the MTV Movie Awards, referenced by Bernard Black on Black Books. If there are a sufficient number of other parodies, it may be worth having a section in the article.--Jeffro77 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Cultural impact of Wonder Woman for parodies. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garner victories vs Garner the Occasional victory

Currently the subject of a revert war, let's talk about it again here. Last time, the break down came at saying 'the occasional victory' implied that she rarely won a fight vs Supes etc. This was opposed because many issues conflict each other, and simply 'Wonder Woman wins when she's scripted to win.' Putting 'occasional' makes her described as less powerful (all around, not just strength but also skill) than other heroes. Since DC doesn't quantify the powers of their super heros (A is strong than B is stronger than C), it's impossible to 100% confirm who is a 'better' fighter than another. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate from last time: If the editor putting in the qualifier has a verifiable, reliable source, other than himself, cite it with the insertion. Otherwise, it is, as he has stated, just his opinion and does not belong in the article. - J Greb 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a citation is what's called for here, unless you're suggesting 'if you can find an article wherein someone refers to Wonder Woman's occasional victories...' We're not discussing fact, but phrasing. She's won some battles. Is it few enough that 'occasional' is the correct descriptor, or does it exclude that? -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I concurr with Ipstenu. The phrasing is the main issue. "Occasional" is not an appropiate descriptor, as what number of victories would justify the use of the word is up to each individual. And I can't recall more the two or three battles against über-powered characters such as the ones discussed in which Wonder Woman lost. --Ace ETP 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ipstenu, as well. For me, this phrase from her comment is the core of the question: "[p]utting 'occasional' makes her described as less powerful (all around, not just strength but also skill) than other heroes."--Galliaz 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For the most part, I'm not disagreeing. It is possible though that there is a critical review of Wonder Woman as a character and the stories that supports the statement. If there is, and an editor is using "occasional" based on that, the cite would justify it being in the article. Last time this happened, the editor championing the term's use didn't bring that type of support with it. To this point, JJonz hasn't provided it either, even after what looks like almost 2 weeks of inserting and re-inserting the word, and within the last week getting hit with the reason why the edit keeps getting reverted. - J Greb 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What sort of support are you looking for, if not some review or another? I guess I'm confused as to what you mean by 'citation' in this instance. Need more coffee. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Something along the lines of the books that pick apart/detail the histories, publication and character-wise, Superman or Batman. - J Greb 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm pretty sure there are publications of that kind with Wonder Woman as their focus, I don't think any include a passage which could be cited as an authorative source for Wonder Woman's victory margin over beings with near god-like power. I'm also sure JJonz will not bother looking for them, as it's pretty clear from his more recent contributions to this article (occurring concurrently with our discussion) that his entire editing policy is based on Wikipedia:The Truth. --Ace ETP 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
All of you listen, there's no need for people to get so all out of sorts over such a simple little word as "occasional". As I have explained before, this simply means that Wonder Woman, powerful as she is, does not routinely defeat those mentioned in physical confrontations. Yes, she has done so before, but not all the time, as some other editors want everyone to believe. She is not the most "Powerful" being in existence, nor is Superman, Supergirl, Captain Marvel, or the Olympian Gods. The use of the descriptor "an occasional victory" still remains the most appropriate wording. --JJonz 11:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or not she wins or loses more often or not, but unless we have a verifiable source in one direction or another, we should leave it with the text that has bias in neither direction. Occasional implies she almost never wins, whereas simply saying victories doesn't really impose bias in either direction. Without a source, it should be left in the NPOV state. She has had victories, whether they are plentiful or few, we have no source for either. Besides the fact that occasional itself is inherently POV, because occasional is subjective. Perhaps it would be better to say some, which implies she has won some and lost some, and is perhaps more NPOV than the previous state.
Also... though you say you don't think Superman is the most powerful, your edits in other articles lead me to believe otherwise... Gscshoyru 11:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
JJonz, no one is asserting that WW is the most powerful being in existence; in fact, the section states "Diana is extremely difficult to defeat in open battle, unless she is fighting beings whose strength and durability surpasses her own, such as Superman, Darkseid, and the Olympian gods." It's this prior statement that makes the insertion of the word "occasional" superfluous.--Galliaz 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WW's Power(s)

I reverted a series of changes that served the purpose of hedging (and hemming-and-hawing) about Diana's power(s). The edits are meant to convey to the reader that even though the character is strong, in the end, she's still a girl. (And therefore weaker than the powerful men in the DCU). The change that I find the most problematic reads like this in the original: Diana is one of the strongest superheroes in the DC Universe. It was changed to: Diana is one of the strongest superheroes in the DC Universe although her over all power level (specifically strength and durability) is still less than that of other heroes such as Superman, Supergirl, or Captain Marvel. Given the character's status as an iconic woman and feminist superhero, I find it unnecessary (and objectionable) that she be compared to a male superhero in that sentence. Diana is one of the DCU's most powerful heroes, period. The entry needs to state that, without comparing her to a man, or hedging about it.--Galliaz 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EM Co-created WW?

I have always been concerned by the statement that WWM co-created WW with his wife, EM. The statement has been flagged for citation for some time, and the recently-added cite to the Boston U alumni magazine article doesn't actually provide any evidence that Elizabeth Marston co-created Wonder Woman. Now, I'm not disputing that she was a strong woman who was an important part of Marston's life. Nonetheless, I think "co-created" goes a bit too far, especially since we do have ample evidence, presented in the Daniels Complete History, for Marston's developing core concepts and ideas entirely on his own. Rather than go ahead and revise the sentence in the entry, I thought I'd begin by starting a discussion here.--Galliaz 02:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We also have two articles which cite the influence of Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne, with more information on Marston than Byrne but it is important both are noted. It is not unusual for the contributions of spouses to go unmarked in official histories and the Boston University alumni magazine is a notable source which fills this gap. Marston's influence is was also cited in the Boston Globe. Both of these sources fit Wikipedia guidelines. So I'm not certain I understand the objection. -Classicfilms 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with the fact that the women in Marston's life greatly influenced and/or contributed to the depiction of the WW character, and it could be asserted that they served as models for WW (in sharing important attributes with her). My point is that while it's important and necessary to assert that EM and OB were important influences on WMM's life and ideas, the term co-creator doesn't seem to properly describe their role in the process. (Although this might sound like legalistic knit-picking, I think it's a worthwhile distinction to make.) Daniels' text doesn't minimize the importance of EM and OB, but also transcribes letters WMM exchanged with the publisher that describe the process through which the character was developed prior to publication.--Galliaz 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But their influence is still clear and certain and needs to be noted. Both articles (sorry I haven't read the biography you reference) make it clear that these women greatly shaped the character - and according to the BU article, it was Marston's idea that the character be female which implies a part in its creation. A question to ask would be, "who" would Wonder Woman be were it not for these two women? All of this is not to argue against your points above -I'm not implying that Elizabeth "wrote" the character or fleshed it out as fully as her husband - but her influence is pretty clear and needs to be noted.
How about a compromise? -Classicfilms 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course! (If my comments implied any other intention, I apologize.) The first sentence of the entry now reads: Wonder Woman is a fictional DC Comics superheroine co-created by William Moulton Marston and wife Elizabeth Holloway Marston. Might I suggest: Wonder Woman is a fictional DC Comics superhero created by William Moulton Marston. Two strong women, his wife Elizabeth Holloway and Olive Byrne, a mutual friend, served as exemplars for the character and greatly influenced her creation.--Galliaz 12:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Keep the reference as well since it supports this statement. -Classicfilms 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like the following added to the "Origin_and_creator" section with the ref at the end of it. Since, as you pointed out, this is not in the Wonder Woman book cited above (which was published a year prior to this article), it's probably useful to provide the source : According to the Fall 2001 issue of the Boston University alumni magazine, it was Elizabeth's idea to create a female superhero (which was not common in the early 1940s): "William Moulton Marston, a psychologist already famous for inventing the polygraph (forerunner to the magic lasso), struck upon an idea for a new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love. 'Fine,' said Elizabeth. 'But make her a woman.'"-Classicfilms 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this addition would definitely enhance the "Origin_and_creator" section. (The BU article can be used as a reference for the entry's revised opening sentences and this addition.)--Galliaz 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, changes have been added. I'll also make changes in related articles. -Classicfilms 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Prince era (1969-1973)

it says that this era owes much to Emma Peel, which is obviously true. yet I thought that Modesty Blaise was also an influence. --Leocomix 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statue Picture

Is the picture of the Amazon statue really necessary in this article? I think it needlessly clutters the page.Jupiterzguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterzguy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Wonder Woman, so I've removed it. Anakinjmt 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powers

Should we add "able to change her clothes by spinning"? Bearing in mind that neither the TV series or the current comics have established how she does it, just that she does it? Daibhid C 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that more be a matter of super speed changing? She does have the speed of Hermes, and in Lois and Clark, Clark changed into Superman by spinning around, and that was just considered superspeed changing. I'd think it'd be the same thing with Wonder Woman. Anakinjmt 01:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawless never expressed interest

I don't know where that supposed 'quote' came from, because the link is no longer available. It is also notable that on her own Wiki page that she turned down the role (mainly because of Xena). Someone ought to edit this out--p4 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)p4poetic.

What are you talking about? The link works just fine. Anakinjmt 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The link works and she does say she was/is interested. By the way she is playing Wonder Woman in DC direct-to-video Justice League story by Bruce Timm and co.[3]. Web Warlock 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits

An anonymous person using several IPs...

...has been reverted and warned several times not to violate WP:NPOV. I'm logging these IPs here so that their contributions are easier to track. —scarecroe (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a user whose contributions appear to be following the same M.O. as the anon logged above: Special:Contributions/Replicator4.7. —scarecroe (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powers section trimmed

I tried to decruft that section a little. Never use ten words when two will do! --Noclevername (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aphrodite's Law

Pre-Crisis, if Wonder Woman allowed herself to be chained by man, she would lose her powers. That should be mentioned. (Not sure if it's post-crisis...) JAF1970 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split "Character history"

The page is 66Kib and while size is not a much of an issue for a character of WW caliber, the 34kib removed as character history would provide a more consciese article, and a chain to abbreviate the nearly 70 years of history without concern of content loss. This would also provide a chance to expand the pub hist to include some regular titles WW, JSA, JLA. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

Page split due to no response. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
That's great but the template on the page asked that the section be split out to a new article. You removed all that information but didn't relocate it anywhere that I can see. —scarecroe (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Fictional history of Wonder Woman -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
Thank you! —scarecroe (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what kind of power

Recent edit wars (excluding vandalism) have swapped out the phrases "god-like power" and "super power" to describe Diana's strength in the infobox. I think we should decide what's the best descriptor here, so we can stick to it on the info box. Diana gets her powers from the gods, and she herself was once made a god. I think "god-like" is an accurate descriptor. What does everyone else think? —scarecroe (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)