Talk:Wonder Woman/Archive 2

Initial WW Image on Main Page

I personally have not done any of the add/deletions of the initial image on the main page, but I have to say it is a little annoying to constantly see a flavor of the month image switching back and forth there. In my opinion the main image should be one that is iconic and stands alone by its own merits. I think the Brian Bolland image fits that bill. The new art image that keeps going up has WW covering her face. Why would you want to have that as the main image? Seriously, I think the face covered image is being used because it is done by the (presently) new artist on the title. IMHO, that image should be way down on the bottom of the page in the section that will develop on the current era of WW. Not the top. Artemisboy 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I don't know if Bolland's image is necessarily "iconic" it certainly shows a clearer picture of her. If someone wants to use a more recent image, at least let's see one that shows her face. If the post-IC Wonder Woman had substantially changed her costume or appearance, then I could see replacing it, but otherwise I don't see the point. I'm not going to get involved in a revert war over this, but I think there should be a consensus on this. 23skidoo 23:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Bring back the BB! CovenantD 23:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And I like the OYL one better, since the style feels more like the rest of OYL. The hair in the BB image is just so ... 80s. -- Ipstenu 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bolland is better than Dodson, plus her face isn't being obscured by her hands. --DrBat 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be biased, but think Terry Dodson does exceptional art and I love the new costume. No offense, but the Bolland art looks (how can I put this without offending the Bolland fans) ... dated. I say keep the OYL Dodson artwork Coronis 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be in the minority. And I don't see any significant change in the costume. --DrBat 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First, her emblem is back to the classic eagle, second her belt resembles her old W emblem. And Dodson coveys such power in his work, you can see the power in her body as she fights Giganta. The Bolland one seems less impressive (her figure seems a little saggy and thin in Bolland's) MetaStar 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dodson is pure t&a cheesecake. And any changes to her costume are minor and unnotable. --DrBat 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I just think Dodson's work is expressive and fluid. His renditions of Spider-Man in Venom in Marvel Knights: Spider-Man were awesome. Terry Dodson is one of my favorite comic artist (along with Ed Benes, Salvador Larroca, and Mike McKone) MetaStar 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, her current costume (with the eagle cheastplate and W belt) reminds me of the WW costume Bryne designed for Hippolyta (in Wonder Woman vol 2, # 128) when she took over as Wonder Woman (sans skirt) Coronis 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm for Bolland's image. Same costume and iconic image, that's perfect. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|right|thumb|180px]] I've got a suggestion. Since it's obvious there's going to be continued disagreement between the Bolland and Dodson camps, why don't we go a completely different route and use the Henry Peter cover from "Sensation Comics" No. 1? I'm serious. It is also iconic, gives historical context, is guaranteed to be fair use as a magazine cover, and is guaranteed not to be outdated because, in a sense, it's timeless. Thoughts? 23skidoo 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image (which I'm adding to the Sensation Comics article anyway. It's there for the taking if you want to put it on the main article. 23skidoo 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bolland pic looks like Diana has cellulite on her ribs, the Dodson WW is AWESOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.147.164 (talk • contribs)

Bad idea to use a Sensation Comics cover. According to Kelly Martin: "A cover image should only be used to illustrate an article about that issue. Do not use a full cover image to illustrate an article about a character." [1]

—Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That completely contradicts the statement on the Licensing tag for comic book covers that says they may be used to illustrate "the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question". As there are no articles allowed on individual comic book issues, only the characters and complete series, I cannot see how Martin suggestion is workable. But as long as the officially sanctioned Wikipedia Image Tag says it's OK to do so then I'm doing so. 23skidoo 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, 23skidoo. Sorry for my mistake. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 20:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could put one of the Dodson WW pics in the OYL section? Coronis 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. I love the picture that's currently used as the main image, but one of Dodson's could probably be used in order to reflect the current image / chronology of Wonder Woman. --Joseph Q Publique 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Artemisboy 15:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the new Dodson cover? It looks very much more modern, which IMO the BB one does not. It conveys a lot of the power and grace of WW. -- Ipstenu 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This one is also great. IMO, just as good as Bolland's. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 15:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deciding one way or the other has been tough for me, because I actually think Bolland's image does convey the character's strength, determination, and resolve. However, Dodson's full cover to #1 is more dynamic, while doing the same things. Finally, since this is an entry about a character in an on-going series, there is also the consideration that perhaps the initial illustration should provide readers with a depiciton of the character as she is currently being portrayed.--Galliaz 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The newest image changer is debating that the image should always relfect current trends. aka flavor of the month images. I don't think this should be the case. What does everyone else think? Artemisboy 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a more recent one would be appropriate. That's what we do for most of the other SHB's on the site. -- Ipstenu 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icons Category

I vote the Gay Icons category remain on the main page. Artemisboy 22:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the category has been deleted. Any reason as to why it should be listed under this category? 23skidoo 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Characters with Black Hair??

Is that a category that WIkipedia needs in any way, shape or form?

Nope. That's why I just nominated it for CFD. 23skidoo 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman image vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

everyone's expressed their opinion but no ones voted. so let's vote: --Exvicious 00:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the new Dodson cover (WW v3 #1)--SHODAN 23:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bolland. --DrBat 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodson. But I will say that Bolland's pic is *not* outdated. The only Wonder Woman that is outdated is probably Deodato's with the thong. (Vote! Only 5 days people!) Exvicious 02:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter If it's just between the two, I'll go with the Dodson cover, just because it's the current one. But (sorry if this sounds paradoxical) I really like that SENSATION COMICS # 1 cover best. Obviously not current, but it hardly gets more iconic than that!User:Andrew Kirschner

Dodson. Not to besmirch the Bolland image - which really is fantastic - but in an article covering a continuing comic series, it's probably more appropriate to show the most recent image of the character. Besides which, we can put the Bolland image further down the page, so it's not like it's gone forever. --Joseph Q Publique 07:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodson No offense to the Bolland image, it does look good, but the Dodson Wonder Woman with the eagles and her with her bracelets crossed (like Lynda Carter in the Wonder Woman TV show) is just awesome. Coronis 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodson This image shows implicitly the developement of the character from the stoic ambassador/heroine of old to the battle-hardened warrior Wonder Woman has now become. Sure she's renounced violence, as such, but committing even justifiable homicide as an effect. NetK 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter - the Sensation Comics #1 cover illustrates the character's origin, and will continue to be of interest no matter what happens in the current comic. Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodson A more current image is the sort we should be using. The Bolland image has it's points, but it's really dated (80s hair, dear lord) -- Ipstenu 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bolland Perfect and iconic image. But I now we're supposed to have a current one on the SHB. I'd keep Bolland's at least till we got a better Dodson's pic. These eagles look awful... like buzzards. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bolland It suits the page better IMO. The fight over the Dodson pic is only because it is newer. Newer is not necessarily better. Artemisboy 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bolland A less-obscured face shot, and I just don't like having images from comics that haven't even been released yet. CovenantD 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodson and Lesfer, you were one of the ones who was for having her up there, now your saying the pic is ugly, you said and I quote "IMO just as good as Bollands", you even added the current version yourself. But now its awful. backpedaling, lesfer, backpedaling. MetaStar 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sue me, then. C'mon, don't make a big deal about it. I've changed my mind, so what? Those eagles really look awful. This pic, on the other hand, looks great. No buzzard-like eagles. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting closed after 5 days. Dodson 7, Bolland 4, Peter 2. Exvicious 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As voting's over, this is intended just as a statement of personal opinion; Lesfer, that second picture you posted rocks. I'm still happy enough with the first one, though. --Joseph Q Publique 14:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This pic is a great work by Exvicious. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it (obviously), but do you think we should have another vote? i was just tired of the bickering. Exvicious 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly prefer your cropped pic, but the current one has just won. Really, enough of voting (lol). Let's wait at least a couple of months till next one. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL oh, good one Lesfer. I have a feeling that somebody (coughDrBatcough) won't be able to resist that long. CovenantD 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that new Dodson image.

And give it a rest, CovenantD; two of the three edit wars were over a defunct costume[2] and one from an alternate reality[3] (and everyone but you wanted to keep the earlier Jean image, as the vote showed [4]). And the wars were all with the same user, who was nothing but rude and insulting despite my attempts to be polite with him [5], so forgive me if I was less than crazy with his images replacing mine. --DrBat 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Two days. Two days after the vote was closed DrBat changed the image again. I knew it wouldn't last for long. CovenantD 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like everyone wanted the image, including those who didnt want the previous one. --DrBat 22:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the new image as well, thanks, DrBat. -- Ipstenu 02:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the current image of WW holding the lasso. Artemisboy 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Who Cares? Just put it up and don't change it every other edit! --Joe Sewell 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

what about these picture http://myspace-133.vo.llnwd.net/01159/33/11/1159221133_m.jpg {supermike]

Info on article

Looking for on All Star Wonder Woman. Help !--Brown Shoes22 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any yet. --DrBat 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In last weeks DC Nation column, didio said Geoff Johns and Phil Jimeinez (sp?) have a follow up "all-star idea." Seeing as how the only All-Star in development right now All-Star Wonder Woman that could quite possibly be it. Exvicious 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article size

Given that the article is about 2/3 larger than recommended, does anybody have ideas for sub-articles or (gasp!) trimming? I bring it up because somebody has just added whole new sections on movie and TV "mentions." CovenantD 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Novels could either be dropped or put into it's own article. Parodies and homage, In other media and Cultural references could all be lumped into 'Wonder Woman Effect' or ... something less twee. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm making the page too long. (One of the main contributors to the media references section) I don't think I'd miss the parodies/graphic novels sections either going away or finding their own pages. Similarly the media references sections could probably have their own page as well. Another idea being that the Post-Crisis sections of the page could have their own page as that section seems to continuously grow as well. Artemisboy 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you the post-Crisis section will stay, based on discussions of Batman. A Cultural impact of Wonder Woman article might work well, though. --Chris Griswold 23:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that title, Chris. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not making it too long, Artemisboy, you're just providing impetus to split the article :-) Cultural impact sounds good. Would that include paradies/homages? CovenantD 04:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally, dudes! RADICAL!!! --Chris Griswold 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd think so, CovenantD Parodies and homage, In other media and Cultural references all fit that description :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OYL Diana Prince = Wonder Woman?

Should this "fact" be included in the article? As far as I know right now, it's just speculation (albeit fairly obvious speculation ... then again, about as "obvious" as the Gotham Central Jim Corrigan becoming the new host for the Spectre). --Joe Sewell 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's Donna Troy. --Chris Griswold 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh? The Diana Prince we saw was while Donna Troy was being mind-f***ed by Dr. Psycho so ... Highly unlikely. He's asking if Diana Prince is Princess Diana (aka the REAL Wonder Woman). We know that Donna Troy is acting WW, but that can't last long. Can it? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know; I'm only going by what my fiancee told me, so I'm not a reliable source on this one yet. She's bringing her copy to me tonight, and I will get back to you then. --Chris Griswold 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Troy as Wonder Woman will last long. Check the Justice League of America preview. Batman is talking to WW and calls her "Diana". —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Ipstenu, the "classic" Wonder Woman (Diana) appeared as the result of a now-bald Dr. Psycho messing with her mind (and, please, watch the language). "Agent Diana Prince" appears on the final panel of issue #1. Since we know nothing else about her, I feel saying that Diana Prince is Princess Diana is speculation. --Joe Sewell 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe what I was saying was that we saw Diana Prince (white jumpsuit) around the same time Donna was being stupified, so is Diana Prince the same as Princess Diana? Yes. Is it spec? Yes. But it's pretty damn certain spec. They're not going to change that forever. If you want to err on the side of caution and not include it yet, I understand. I'd call it an educated guess though that she will be. (the rest of the who in the what was from Chris, who hadn't read the comic yet and me trying to (badly) explain what was up).

Clarification: We saw Diana Prince, in the jumpsuit, while Donna was hallucinating about Classic WW. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One issue I have is that someone placed information in the OYL section stating that Donna was retconned into being openly raised on Themyscira. The first issue never said this. Donna was shown on the island, yes, beside (probably) Magala. However the rest of the Amazons weren't looking in their direction. They were looking at Diana. This tells me that Donna is simply recalling the mirror image scenerio where she, in hiding, took Diana's place for various Princess events Diana didn't care to be part of. Artemisboy 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Artemisboy, I disagree. Sicne we've come to 52 with the *ahem* understanding that Donna Troy is all versions of herself at once (ow), then the version of her who was born on Themyscira is as real and as valid as her as Harbinger. Sheesh, how many ways can we screw up Donna Troy, I ask you? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm still not sure about that one. By your own reasoning the background history of Donna being a mirror image is then just as likely as the one where she was raised on Themyscira. So we both could be right, but the fact that one scenerio is placed in the main article as fact just doesn't sit well with me. Hopefully I am proved wrong, and I'm not about to delete the info until it is proven right, but I just don't think it should be part of the main page until it is stated to be as such in the comic book as fact. Artemisboy 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Donna Troy's latest origin doesn't seem to have been changed, and it can be argued that there is some evidence for that. After all, Donna is referred to as Diana's sister in these new issues. Even if Diana is going back to her Silver Age roots, it's unlikely Donna is too, since Pre-Crisis-On-Infinite-Earths, Donna Troy wasn't Diana's sister (nor was she drawn to look like she was her younger twin). She was just a normal human being, born to the Hinckleys and adopted by the Staceys, and saved by Wonder Woman from the fire which destroyed the Stacey household, and subsequently given powers by the Amazons. Post-Crisis, her origin was the same except she had no ties to Wonder Woman, since the Titans of Myth were revealed as the ones who had supplied her with powers in the new continuity. Donna having no ties to Diana was of course changed with the publication of that John Byrne story which revealed Donna was Diana's magically created biological sister, with her time at Themyscira having being purged from everyone's memories in the moment Dark Angel captured her and forced her to be magically born to Dorothy Hinckley (re-living her Earth-One origin in the new reality). So if Donna is still Diana's sister, we can be sure that their current canonical relationship has more to do with the one established in the Byrne run that the one established in Pre-Crisis-On-Infinite-Earths. All Infinite Crisis seems to have changed about Donna is probably push the date of her creation a few years back, so Diana can be able to leave the island in time for the Silver Age. --Ace ETP 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Athena's eyes

Did the Rucka run ever clarify what the "sight of Athena" power entailed? Maybe we should add it in. TheronJ 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aphrodite's DC Origin

• I can't seem to remember. In the Wonder Woman comics, do the writers follow the "Aphrodite is Zeus' daughter" story or the original "Aphrodite was created from Uranus' flesh via sea foam" story? Artemisboy 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nu'Bia

There's a Nu'Bia page now dedicated to both the original and modern versions, in case you wanted to add information on the Bronze Age version to the Wonder Woman page. --Basique 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

She is irrelevant to the article and you know it. But you seem to be blinded by your pattern of overvaluing some lame characters based on the simple fact they're dark skinned. Face the fact: some characters (regardless of ethnics) are not important. She has an article now? Great! After all this is an encyclopedia. But there's no point in mentioning "Nubia" in this article. She's irrelevant. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me Lesfer. --Basique 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Anytime. You're welcome ;) —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Outside the comic book community, she is known for the popular 1975–79 television adaptation starring Lynda Carter. Wonder Woman was also featured in the 1970s and '80s animated series Super Friends and the Justice League animated series in the 2000s This is in the introductory paragraph. Is it really necessary? I mean, FA's like Supes and Bats don't make any mention of the alternate TV/Movie/cartoon versions of the superhero. Rightly so, cause it is not of paramount importance, and, will be mentioned again elsewhere in the article. I say the entire paragraph be deleted. --TommyStardust 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Diana's Astral Projection

Hi there. I just recieved a citation request for Diana's astral projection moments. I'm at work so I don't have the issues in front of me, but I was hoping some issue #s might be offered to help close the request. I do know that she projected into the mythic lands during William Messner-Loebs' run in order to gain the golden fleece and speak to Pan, as well as during the Artemis Requiem mini-series in order to save Artemis from hell. Does anyone have the golden fleece and Pan issue #s or any other instances where Diana astral projected? Thanks. Artemisboy 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in the cite-req :) I'm only leery at listing it if she only showed the skill a couple times and then it vanished like the *cough* invisible plane. Maybe a 'for a short time, during the Messner-Loebs run, ... This skill has not been seen since.' Or something qualifierish. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the issues in which this happens in the article as requested. I don't have the issue numbers yet but a friend also reminded me that she astral projected into the lands of myth in order to seek her previously missing Amazon sisters and another time to speak to the god Proteus. She even astral projected herself into the womb of a pregnate mother during George Pérez's run on the title in order to stop Doctor Psycho from violating it's mind. As soon as I find the issue numbers to those I will add them to the reference section. Artemisboy 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hercules Storyline Question

Does anyone remember the name of the superhero Hercules traded personas with during John Byrne's run? Artemisboy 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, his name was Champion

Sleep-power

The lasso/sleep information (and the recently posted image associated with it) seems pretty peripheral to me, and adds little (or nothing) to the entry. The entry is a bit too long already, and we should be judicious about the additions we make to it. I'm in favor of removing this information. Am I out on a limb, here, or does anyone else agree? --Galliaz 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be minor, but this is an encyclopedic entry about Wonder Woman's powers and abilities, is it not? The materials provided clearly illustrate that she does possess this ability. —scarecroe 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two quotes from "The Perfect Article" Wiki style-guide: a perfect article (1) "is of an appropriate length ... without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "subarticles", related articles, or sister projects," and (2) "includes informative, relevant images ... but not so many as to detract from it." I'm of the opinion that the sleep power info provides unnecessary detail, as does the image .--Galliaz 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opposite opinion. The information is only one sentence and there are no other pictures in that section. Not including it would side like the article is trying to hide the fact that this event took place in a story and that it's not a part of her history. The information is completely relevant, fits into what that part of th earticle is trying to express and has already been backed up by another user's contribution with additional facts that support it. —scarecroe 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping mention of it seems to make sense, since it's in canon as. The image is a fine touch, but since it's not one of her "main" powers, it isn't essential, IMO.VanPelt101 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

gauntlet vs bracelet

This article uses extensive use of referring to what Diana wears on her wrists as gauntlets and bracelets. I've never heard of them referred to as gauntlets, and as far as I can tell, what she wears couldn't be described as gauntlets. —scarecroe 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, bracelet is the preferable term.--Galliaz 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as there's documentation here for the reasons why, I'm going to go ahead and convert the term gauntlets to bracelets. —scarecroe 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The only gauntlets she wore was the Gauntlet of Atlas. She typically wears her bracelets only. Artemisboy 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

bondage theme

Right now there are two pictures illustrating bondage themes in early WW comics, both with the same caption. I don't think the subject justifies more than one. I propose we pick one and get rid of the other. —scarecroe 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. CovenantD 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My proposition was that we pick one. "We" meaning the community involved/interested in this article. Next time, please allow for further discussion. —scarecroe 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

not related to the original post, but fits the title of this section: I recently found this comic book scan http://www.superdickery.com/bondage/43.html (Safe For Work) which has the enemy character explicitly ask wonder woman if she is into bondage/domination. I've noticed alot of lacking citation for the sections which reference bondage, and figure this should confirm it (somewhat). It's a bit hard to read, but the important words stand out.129.21.109.54 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I believe this information "In addition to comic books, the character was featured in the popular 1975–79 television adaptation starring Lynda Carter, and the Super Friends and Justice League animated series. Plans for a motion picture adaptation are also under way." Does not not belong in the intro. It belongs in the "in other media" section. I believed this has been talked about before, but no other hero has specific television information in their intro.Jupiterzguy 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Galliaz 10:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, partly. Lynda Carter is a significant part of the reason that Wonder Woman is well known to generations. While Batman has had many actors fill his cowl, I think that for many people Wonder Woman is Lynda Carter, just as Superman is Chris Reeves. It's a large part of her fame. I'm not gonna belabor it, though, if I'm outvoted :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. However, a film actress will soon fill the role, and she may be the touch-point/icon for legions of future WW fans. That's why I think the info belongs in an "other media" section. (The TV series and the upcoming film already have their own entries.) And although it's a quibble, I'd say that LC is well-known to a generation, rather than generations. (A generation encompassing ~30 years or so.) But don't get me wrong, I watched the show like everyone else I knew, and one morning I was sent home from my summer activities camp to change out of the "racy" Linda Carter T-shirt I had showed up in. :) --Galliaz 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that WW as a character was more affected by the TV portrayal than Superman and Batman were by any of their TV or film counterparts - probably because of the fact that there have been no other live-action portrayals of her. I wouldn't advocate any larger mention of it, but I think it's just fine as is.VanPelt101 14:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but I still don't think it belongs in the intro. This article is about a 'comic book' character. Adaptations that are not of the comic book belong in their own section, just like every other superhero. Jupiterzguy 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to check some of the other superheroes, because mentioning the other media appearances in the lead is actually quite common. This fits in very well with the rest of the comic characters articles. CovenantD 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to go too much into semantics here, but I'd argue these pages aren't solely about the comic characters per se as they are about the overall nuts and bolts of characters who originated in comics. Like very few others, WW transcends a simple "comic" character definition - hence the need for a separate cultural impact section and, I'd argue justification for a brief mention of her TV and movie appearances.VanPelt101 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First Modern appearance

Superman and Batman both note the first modern (Posr-Crisis) appearances of the characters, and the same should probably be done for Wonder Woman. I know her first Post-Crisis appearance was in "Legends", but what issue? WesleyDodds 12:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It was Legends #6.VanPelt101 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Before Infinite Crisis, you'd have been right. However, her entire Silver Age history appears to belong to current Wonder Woman once again. Doczilla 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the whole premise of Legends doesn't match with canon anymore. Still, a mention of her chronological re-entry into the DCU Post-Crisis couldn't hurt. Of course, after some more digging, I think she appeared in Wonder Woman (vol. 2) #1 before Legends #6 was published - and it definitely takes place earlier in the storyline. So I'm back to square one on this one...VanPelt101 08:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a mention of her re-entry during the time B.C. (Between Crises) would be appropriate, once we make sure which is correct. We need confirmation. Going by our vague recollections would be OR. WW v2#1 obviously takes place earlier in terms of story. I just don't remember for certain if that's when she first reappeared after CoIEs in terms of publication history. But as for her first modern appearance, we'd just be guessing. DC hasn't said. Doczilla 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

four times a year

Kurt Busiek is quoted at Comics Should Be Good as saying that DC at one time had to publish at least four issues of Wonder Woman a year or lose the rights to the property to the estate of William Moulton Marston, creator of Wonder Woman:

They are no longer true, but they were true for a long time — as I understand it, the terms were that DC had to publish at least four issues with “Wonder Woman” as the banner lead feature or rights would revert. That’s why DC did the LEGEND OF WONDER WOMAN mini-series that I wrote and Trina Robbins drew — the Perez revamp was in development, but coming along slowly, and they had to publish something to fulfil the contract terms.

They specifically didn’t want something that would be attention-getting, because they didn’t want to undercut the revamp. So they wanted something gentle and nostalgic, and we had fun doing it.

In the intervening years, though, I’m given to understand that at some point DC bought the character outright, and thus those contract terms are no longer in force.

Can anyone provide any good sources for this? This would be a pretty important part of the character's publishing history. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although well-known, DC's less than forthcoming on the subject, so evidence is hard to come by. Definitive proof of this is hard to find. Best I've been able to scrounge up is mentions of it in interviews. It appears to have still held true just post-Crisis, when they had to publish The Legend of Wonder Woman mini series because Perez's reboot was over a year away. VanPelt101 07:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)