Talk:Wonder Woman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Updating the infobox image

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.

---

I propose changing the infobox image for Wonder Woman from the bathing suit to something that more universally represents the character. I submit File:Wonder Woman DC Comics.png for the community's consideration for the following reasons:

1. File:Wonder Woman DC Comics.png depicts the character as she is most commonly seen in comics (her main books and spin-offs), animation (direct-to-video movies, Harley Quinn (TV series), Justice League Action, etc), and live action.
2. File:Wonder Woman DC Comics.png meets all the criteria of MOS:COMICS#BOXIMAGE
3. As a style established for several years, File:Wonder Woman DC Comics.png fails WP:RECENTISM.
4. File:Wonder Woman.jpg features Wonder Woman with an outdated suit (criteria cited for a similar change to Superman)
5. File:Wonder Woman.jpg does not adhere to "the conventional line art of comic books" (also cited for changes to Superman)

In addition to the criteria named for keeping the Superman infobox image up to date, Batman, Aquaman, Flash (DC Comics character), Flash (Barry Allen), Wally West, Robin (character), Dick Grayson, Black Canary, Green Arrow, Catwoman, Hourman, Starman (Ted Knight), Lex Luthor, Supergirl, and Lois Lane all have relatively modern images.

There's no reason for Wonder Woman's main image to be so dated. File:Wonder Woman.jpg would certainly be appropriate to keep for the character's history elsewhere in the article.

Thoughts? —scarecroe (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for it. I love the picture there now — but the article's main image should reflect the most current iteration of the character; if I were just learning about Wonder Woman, I'd want to know what she looks like "right now" in comics. Besides, there's lots of equitable opportunities to showcase her past designs within the body of the article. — Alex7000 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change. WW has an 80 year history and for most of that time this the costume the character typically wore. The cape, pteruges, gladius, and shield are relatively recent additions in comparison. The cape is particularly troublesome as the character is not typically known for wearing them. Remember the infobox image is supposed to be representative of the entire character, not just the past few years. Per WP:RECENTISM we “aim toward a long-term, historical view”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A "long-term, historical view" doesn't accurately describe the Alex Ross image of the character in a thong and oversized gold belt. The look held by the character in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (probably best represented by José Luis García-López) would more closely align with your sentiment, but that reasoning is not used on any of the other examples cited. —scarecroe (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Ross image is a modern interpretation of the classic look and is more inline with images of 70s, 80s, and 90s then what has been proposed here. The image doesn’t have to be old itself but all representative.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That said, I see your point on the shield and sword. I think this would work as an alternative and still meets the criteria I outlined above. —scarecroe (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

She still has the pteruges, and the image is cropped at the knees.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat here. The current image has been present in the article for three years with no problems, and it depicts the costume she's worn for the majority of her existence. JOEBRO64 14:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. See the discussion here. —scarecroe (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of the sword and shield either — or the cape for that matter. As TriiipleThreat said, these elements are relatively recent additions in her 80 years. I've been alive for 50 of those years. And as a dyed-in-the-wool Wonder Woman fan, I can tell you who I've observed as offering a "long-term, historical view" — actually, it's the same person Scarecroe briefly alluded to above: the character design by José López.

There have been a handful of Wonder Woman character designs over eight decades that have made deep impacts: certainly H.G. Peter's original; Sedowsky's MOD upset in the sixties; Perez's Post Crisis revamp; Ross' hyper-realistic paints; even Brian Bolland's sharp, cutting persona. But López's depiction of Diana has been marketed throughout most of those other artists' tenures — and beyond. Since creating the DC Comics character style guides in the 80s, his Diana is still marketed today. So, if "long-term, historical view" is the standard by which you want this article's primary image to reflect, López's depiction is at least as relevant as Alex Ross' — if not more — and you don't have to reach back 10 years to find one; DC Comics just released more licensed merchandise on their web page featuring López's Wonder Woman. How's that for "long-term, historical view?" ;)

Does this mean I want a López image to greet Wikipedia readers? I wouldn't be opposed to it. But remember, I'm also an advocate for showing Diana as she currently appears in comics. TriiipleThreat invokes WP:RECENT as a line in the sand against it. This stance precludes any value Wikipedia readers might glean from such an image. To say nothing of the fact that WP:RECENT speaks of the writing, not necessarily the imagery. And I'll remind us all that the current Wonder Woman article covers a lot of history; I doubt the image we choose will disenfranchise readers from the balance of perspectives within the body of the article itself.

And as long as we're throwing around Wikipedia's explanatory supplements (which are not part of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines), I'll hasten to add that TheJoebro64's invoking WP:STABLE as an argument for not making changes to something simply because it hasn't been changed in years is peculiar since the supplement itself warns that WP:STABLE "should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute." I suggest reading all of WP:STABLE to fully understand its purpose.

Finally, it seems to me that Scarecroe is at least extending an olive branch — the response to which reads like an itemization checklist: "She still has the pteruges" — this is a summary dismissal of anything that's not already in place. Which is curious since Ross takes his own liberties with the bodice and belt — a departure not seen outside his art. If this is, as TriiipleThreat insists, a "modern interpretation of the classic look" (I noticed you stopped short to include the 60s, 50s, and 40s in which she wore shorts and culottes) then pteruges can reasonably be considered just another interpretation.

But if it can't, if this is really about preserving a "long-term, historical view," and not just a matter of personal taste — and nobody will meet each other halfway — then I say forget Alex Ross and the pteruges and go with the Wonder Woman artist that fits your criteria honestly: José Luis García-López. — Alex7000 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Scarecroe and Alex7000: Again, I just want to reiterate that I see no reason for change but since you both mentioned José Luis García-López and Alex's particular persuasive argument for him; here is an example of his work that could be used.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we need to go beyond what this article has. There is plenty of iconic examples on other pages and outside of Wikipedia. I agree with TriiipleThreat and I feel like Alex100 is just rambling and being peculiar again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I think that's a great image — and an equitable compromise. @Jhenderson777: mind your manners. — Alex7000 (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I normally do but with an editor like you who seems to claims ownership of this page. Nah! That was unnecessary rambling IMO just like those reverts were unnecessary and were against Wp:AGF. You don't undo an edit without looking at edit revisions etc. That was the icing on the cake. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you just reply, "Nah!" to a request for common courtesy? Also, "Claims ownership of this page," hardly describes my interaction in the above conversation. If expression of ideas and viewpoints amounts to "rambling" in your estimation — I suspect that perhaps you have little interest in the subject matter. And given that this is the first time I've ever exchanged words with you on a Talk page, I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you're not this puerile all the time. Lastly, regarding my reverts on your link deletions, I'm more than happy to discuss the matter maturely on the Talk page under its own Header rather than continue your hijacking of this one. — Alex7000 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about your edit war in Timeline of DC Comics and your first undo was you not even paying attention to an edit summary. Neither was unnecessary. But it's irrelevant here so back to the image discussion here and of course I take the blame for the change of subject. I am glad you found an compromise. But saying "mind your manners" sounds more bossy than corteous. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:43, 7 April 2020 (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.