Talk:Power Girl/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

Done. Ichormosquito (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And undone.

Frankly, the only differance between the two is the new one is just that - the image for a comic that has yet to ship. It depicts the character that, save minor costume tweaks is the same as the Ross image, which is the classic outfit.

- J Greb (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think their argument - that for the all the undisputed clarity of the Ross image, it's still ugly - is a legitimate one. Also: she hasn't had that hairdo since Earth-2. Ichormosquito (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) Right... the "I think it's ugly" argument from a discusion from a year ago that wasn't acted on. Something that doesn't hold a lot. And an argument that the "hair style" hasn't been use in 20 years dosn't hold since that's been the default up to and including recent JSA issues.

- J Greb (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But Simon Le Bon DID act to change the image - like me, he posted the Amanda Conner interpretation. Funnily enough, you were the one to undo his edit. You're the lone wolf in the wilderness, at this point. But I'm not in the mood to start a revert war with a condescending admin, so just realize, sir, you are on the wrong side of wiki-history. The image will be changed, whether or not I'm the one to do it. Ichormosquito (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a new photo that I think really captures her spunky attitude, and makes her look more pleasant then the Ross photo which coudn't capture her beauty and grace.Skulduggery3 (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you draw that? Not bad, but I don't think it does a good job of epitomizing Power Girl's unique look or personality. Of course, neither does the mannish Alex Ross one. Whatevs. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wally Wood/Power Girl 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

A handful of professors of the Sequential Art Department at SCAD University often mention that Wood's involvement with her breast size set a standard that would help the erosion of the Comics Code. I can't verify the relationship between them and woods, or her breasts and the comics code, but it may be more relevant when you consider the action in context of the period. --A SCAD student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1200:8F:498F:C33E:A93:BC42 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Power Woman

When was she known by this codename?

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

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)

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)

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)

Image:infinitecrisis2.jpg

Before this gets added back to the article, could those that want it back please give a valid reason for it? Especially in light of where it was sitting in the article. ("Infinite Crisis" section)

I've tended to go on faith that there was a deeper rational for it, and moved on. But with the recent back and for about adding additional "Power Girl looks like" images, another editor has pulled the image. And looking at it again, he's right to have done so: it didn't add anything to the section it was in, so there is little significance beyond the character's look. We've got the infobox image to cover that, which makes this image redundant.

Putting it back is going to need something more substantial than "We need another image".

- J Greb (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy

The article mentions her pregnancy as having taken place during Zero Hour, but she was pregnant before that (through at least Judgment Day). Can anybody provide citation on when her pregnancy actually started?

MrBlonde267 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The link to Equinox actually directs people to the Marvel character. That needs to either be corrected on this end, or else the Equinox page needs to make reference to how there is a different DC character. Also, could anyone please scan a picture of Power Girl's son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.175.64 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.24.184.42.86 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

I recently added a new picture of Power Girl that compliments her more then the previous Ross photo and someone reverted it back. In an effort to avoid a revert-edit war I'm want to see who agrees that this photograph should be the main picture for this article and the old (rather ugly) picture by Alex Ross.Skulduggery3 (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the process though, since your bold edit was reverted, is for you to find a consensus here to change the image, then change it. Not to undo the revert and come here to ask "Who wants to keep this?" or "Who agrees with me that this is better than that old POS?"

As far as the relative merits of the image - I'm sorry, the Ross image is consistent with how the character is most often depicted. The pin-up isn't, it's the "new look but in a 1940's style". - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ross image features a hairstyle not being used at the moment which is more similar to my photo. And what makes a 40's style any less important then the modern look. As for your comment about my "bold" edit I was just trying to help the article.Skulduggery3 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a pic way better then yours I'll put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazisasquatch (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Skulduggery3, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images:

• We try to use "most universally recognisable appearance of a character" - that may or may not coincide with the "current look". With this character, that appearance tends to be the white leotard with a circular cutout and the bob hairstyle.
• "Heavily stylised art should only be considered for use when the character is closely associated with the style to the exclusion of less extreme styles." - A 1940s pin-up girl layout and style is not consistant with or closely linked to this character.

And I can appreciate wanting to help the article. But generally WP:BRD is followed. And "I don't like X's art" tends to be a hard sell as a reason to change an image. If it was an easy sell, most if not all of the images by Ross and Land, among others, would have been stripped out long ago. Whether they fit the articles or not. - J Greb (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Ross' art and I agree with you that this isn't the universally accepted look and I agree it is a 40's look. Then why don't we try and fit it into the 40s' section of the article to show how she appeared during that time? Also I didn't change it back just before it was someone else and I noticed your message in the history and like I said that wasn't me...Skulduggery3 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think put this in the 40's section?Skulduggery3 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... [3] after BBia's 1st revert and [4] after his second. And a question could arise since 74.108.143.82 tried to put the pinup in place using the same filename as you later uploaded.

As for the character in the 1940s... The character was created in 1976 and, AFAIK, there hasn't been a story arc using her set in the 1940s. - J Greb (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to put in the correct file to get the photo up and I never said I supported 74.108.143.82 decision to change it without consensus. About 40's then why did you say the pinup was drawn in a 40's style. If anyone disagrees I might edit the Debut of Power Girl part to have the pinup but I'll wait for consensus.Skulduggery3 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at WP:SOCK in light of this - [5] [6] [7] - sequence you are skirting damn close to sockpuppetry. - J Greb (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying the picture needs to be changed, but to a 1940s-style pinup? Why? We need an Amanda Conner image, for the same reason there's an Ethan Van Sciver piece for "Green Lantern" and a Terry Dodson for "Wonder Woman" - these artists reinvented their respective characters' looks for the 21st Century. Subsequent comics and DC marketing material all pull from these artists' trendsetting work. Ichormosquito (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And the funny thing is that Van Sciver's Hal Jordan and Dodson's Wonder Woman fit the long standing look of the characters. Conner's Power Girl tap dances close, but loses it with the shoulder guard and the "squared" cutout. - J Greb (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the photo of her on the cover of Infinite Crisis?74.108.143.82 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious when you say "The photo of her"? because the article is about a fictional character. Anyway, just read WP:CMOS#Superhero box images, if somebody wants to change the character's image this one works better than the others. --24.192.70.212 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you find a way to link to that so it doesn't default to another page? I'm getting Disney every time I click on it. - J Greb (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_28znVDGBLb8/SBUG4-KAjXI/AAAAAAAAASk/RDPDZ2IKmx0/s400/Power-Girl.jpg Hollister4Mayor (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone upload this I don't have the credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollister4Mayor (talk • contribs) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the user above's link is to here: http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=33652 Hollister4Mayor (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh, that Bruce Timm one is gorgeous! But it's probably too stylized for a general profile. I say go with Amanda Conner or Jim Lee. 208.120.254.18 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (Me, not signed in.) Ichormosquito (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Timm is nice, but as you note, overly stylized. The one fro the blogspot... is a step back, at least, since it's closer to a mugshot. - J Greb (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

March 2010 revisit

This article needs a new picture, Alex Ross' Power Girl is not the definitive interpretation. There are plenty of Adam Hughes and Amanda Connor images that would fit the bill, or the cover to issue 13 of her series by the new regular artist Sami Basri seen here http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/files/2010/03/pgl_cv13.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justingibson (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Running over this again - At a Project level, what we are looking for is an image that is a full length front view of the character, not in a contorted or twisted pose, and using the most universally recognized "look" of the character. Back shots and art with faded colors - both issues with the Power Girl #13 artwork - are not a step forward in this case. Nor are "this is the new costume" shots (the art for the first issue of the current series), nor the cheesecake/pin-up-esque art from Hughes, nor pieces that "compress" the character so there is "stuff" around her (also that first issue cover art). - J Greb (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 revisit

How about this one: http://media.photobucket.com/image/powergirl/fairygrl_2006/powergirl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.42.86 (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Or this: http://www.nicewallpapers.info/pics/cartoons/power-girl/power-girl_000.jpg24.184.42.86 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And both buck the project level guide lines. - J Greb (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/182668-113570-power-girl_super.jpg http://media.photobucket.com/image/power%20girl/lost_angelwings/comics/pgwindow1.jpg http://www.dcnoisepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/PowerGirl2.jpg http://thefaust.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/power-girl-4.gif 24.184.42.86 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see...

1. Unpublished, borderline softcore images. The first makes it ineligible under image policy. The second makes it inappropriate for this article. Period.
2. Shows less of the character than the current - so that's a step back which isn't a good thing.
3. The "gold shoulder pad/armour" can be avoided, thanks.
4. Close to the same portion of the figure as the current, except we lose the hands. Also the "reg gems" are a real problemd

That would be 0 for 6 on improving the image.

- J Greb (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree there should be a new photo!24.184.42.86 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you agree with yourself... or are there more than 1 editor using the IP 24.184.42.86? - J Greb (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.42.86 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just stating my opinion here but I dont see any need to change, delete or add any images to this article. The Ross image is very iconic. The Conner image used for the publiciation captures PG's current look. Besides that we have her debut and her as Nightwing. I dont see any need for improvement. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Costume

There has been a bunch of commentary on the costume and 'boob window' by several feminists commentators,etc.

• [8]
• -my-choice’-speech-from-a-fictional-character
• [9]
• [10]
• es-gender-in-comics

Which might provide a good background to flesh-out this discussion further in the article. -Sharp962 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

I seem to remember an interview with one of the artists who originated PG. wherein he said he kept making the chest larger, and only stopped when someone at DC said something about it. For the life of me, I cannot recall where i saw that. Does that flip a switch with anyone else? -Hexhand (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Adressed repeatedly above. The net result was that no one found a single shred of citeable evidence to back it up. The story's just an urban legend. --Noclevername (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Power Girl (comic book)

I think there should be an article for the current Power Girl comic book by Jimmy Polmiati, Justin Grey and Amanda Conner. The series has enough critical acclaim to warrant notability.--Beware the Unknown (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, setting up a "Publication history" on this article that includes information on both the 1988 mini and the current series first would be a better idea. It can provide the real world grounding for those publications and point out if the article will run long enough to consider splitting, which is generally around the 70k file size mark.

- J Greb (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleavage Picture

Is relevant enough for the article to add an illustration with the character's famous cleavage window? A fine example could be the page 12 or 13 (I don't remember well) of JSA Classified book, when the kid looks straight to them. Thanks. --123.203.68.89 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Off the top? Not really - J Greb (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No! with her top. Even I could make a free svg graphic of the cleavage if that helps with the context, just like that Nightwing image. Any other opinion? Thanks again.--58.115.145.76 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever-present Cleavage & Wally Wood topic (possible reference)

The recent issue of SFX has a comment about the apocryphal Wally Wood story in an information box at the end of a reivew of Power Girl: A New Beginning: "Allegedly, Power Girl's mighty cleavage is due to artist Wally Wood, who kept increasing it to see when the editors would tell him to stop." (SFX, issue 195, June 2010 (published in April), p. 128, review by Saxon Bullock). I know it has come up before and I'm not sure if it's worth adding this to the article or not. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Keagan version

Since IPs tend to sometimes have their edits removed without consultation (usually by bots in my experience), I'll just note here that I added a reference to Carrie Keagan's performances as Power Girl in G4TV's Attack of the Show's comedy skits. Since AOTS is broadcast internationally, and Keagan is independently notable as a model, actress and HLN/FOX News contributor, I think it's worthy of inclusion. The link I added was to G4TV's official website for the show which I believe counts as a reliable source. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogues gallery

We should include a section, of this article, about her rogues gallery. Starting with her original mini series, she got a few villains of her own. She's been given a couple more, in the JSA books and in her own title, Judd Winick is currently fleshing out, her rogues gallery. However, as it's still a too small one, to justify it's own article, I'd suggest that we'd do like with the Martian Manhunter article and have a specific section, on the Power Girl article about her enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coq87rouge (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Are there any reliable secondary sources the spell out the rouges gallery? If so, should be OK.
• Has DC published a list titled "Power Girl's rouges gallery"? Would be borderline acceptable if a secondary source doesn't exist.
• Are we relying on "recurring villains" or "has appeared as an opponent in the current? If so, then no. We don't get to create or apply the label. There are other wikis more geared to accepting that level of editor analysis, synthesis, and original research.
• Just because other articles have a questionable, or inappropriate, section, doesn't mean they should be applied here.
• A separate article without either of the first two points is right out - no matter how many foes the character has faced.

- J Greb (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on Supergirl...

Power Girl was introduced in 1976, at which point her sole similarities, to Supergirl were hair color & being Superman's cousin (which is not uncommon, when it comes to female spin-off characters. And they couldn't just have her show up, as Kal-L's never before mentioned sister, as it was well-established that both E-1 & E-2 Supermen, where an only child). Though, a rumour has it, that Gerry Conway wanted to make P.G., the daughter of Kal-L & Lois Lane-Kent (if this is true, then the similarites fades away, fast). For the first two years of her "life", she was only called Power Girl & Superman's cousin (and while it was established, that both Kryptonians had been sent to Earth, by their fathers, how they were cousins, were unknown. Were their fathers brothers? Were their mothers sisters? Was Jor-L brother, to P.G.'s mother? Or was P.G.'s father, the brother of Kal-L's mother?). It wasn't until Paul Levitz wrote her three issue arc, in Showcase #97-99, that she got the name Kara Zor-L. I'd argue, that any similarity between the two women, where minimal, until Levitz took over (unless there's any solid evidence, that Conway actually based his Power Girl on Supergirl, beyond her being a Superman's cousin). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coq87rouge (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Arguing that Power Girl is not based upon Supergirl is just ridiculous. 75.147.119.213 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Power Girl as a counterpart to Supergirl was established in her first appearance in All-Star Comics #58 with this caption: "Obviously, on Earth-Two, Superman has kept Power Girl's existence a secret longer than he did on Earth-One. Honest -- No lie. -- Gerry." Conway may have planned variant backstories, similar to the differences between Earth-One and Earth-Two versions of Green Arrow or Aquaman, but Power Girl was presented as a Supergirl counterpart from the start. Mookie89 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you finally let us change the 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.

---

To that admin that keeps stopping everyone who's requested it (and I can see there are several of us): it's been some time, can we finally change the image for this article? Any one of these would do, I took specific care of choosing one without the golden pauldron since you seem to be so adverse to it: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/infinitecrisis2xu8.jpg/sr=1

http://gavinstephens.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/power_girl_2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ce3woiNjs7g/ThHyiTe5j8I/AAAAAAAAAzk/P8MAC51T0o8/s1600/PGWallpaper.jpg

You'll probably say something about odd angles in the third picture. Still, the first picture shows more of her "most well-known" costume than the current image, as does the second one, so I don't see why they wouldn't be suitable replacements for the current image. Thoughts? 187.142.3.178 (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: What exactly, in light of these guidelines, are you fixing as problems with the current image? And do the suggested images actually fix those issues in stead of a) continuing them, b) trading them for other issues, or c) adding to them?

- J Greb (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The current image is perfectly fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not looking to join the debate, but is there an open discussion somewhere on what to do about character images in light of the DC relaunch? Mookie89 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge and I doubt there will be, WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE states the most universally recognisable appearance of a character is best, which The New 52 is not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we go by the "most well-known" representation of the character, the current image makes Power Girl look like a man. Something that you can see is an opinion shared by several who have commented on this page, in the "Image" section up there. Power Girl is NOT known as a manly heroine, that image completely comunicates the wrong message about the character. If, say, we had a picture of Batman on his page where he's doing the bat-twist, but that accurately portrays his "most well-known" costume, would you be so adamant that it stayed? No, because it doesn't accurately portray the character.

-The first image proposed above as substitute for the current one complies with all the guidelines for superhero images. Though it doesn't show Power Girl alone, she is clearly the most prominent object in-frame, something the guidelines accept. It displays more of her costume than the current picture. And if you have a problem with it having more characters in it, I can edit it and that'll be it. This image portrays the character as evidently powerful yet still both young and feminine.

-The second image is even more compliant with the guidelines, as it represents the most well known version of the costume more prominently than the current image, and portrays her facing dead-forward to the camera, with a pure white background. It also does a good job of portraying her character as powerful, confident and feminine, at least better than the current image.

-The third image does just as good a job at portraying her as the others. You might say that she's not standing perfectly upright whilst facing at the camera, yet the guidelines only advice against using images with visibly contorted poses, which as common sense will tell you, is not present in the third image. It portrays the most of her costume, showing detail in her boots, and it portrays the character accurately. You might also argue that size is inconvenient, well it can easily be cropped to feature only the character without all of the background.

As you can see, the current image fails at accurately portraying the character and any person seeking to know the character by means of Wikipedia will undoubtedly leave with the impression that Power Girl is a manly butterface superheroine. Like I said before, it is no different than using an image of an evil-aggressive-red eyes-looking Superman and saying it's alright because it accurately displays his costume. His article image displays him in a classic heroic pose, very upright, as is fitting with the characters. I hope you can offer a better excuse for keeping the current image than "well its already there so...". Regards.189.187.223.183 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.187.223.183 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Again the current image is fine. The current image is completely completely compatible with Comics project guidelines. Your argument is one of personal preference and must be supported by consensus to affect change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Art by Creating/Notable/Fan-fave/Hot artists is preferred" and "Art by New/Fan-loathed/Old/Obscure artist should not be used" have never been part of the criteria. And frankly it's counterproductive to creating encyclopedic article. - J Greb (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The first image is by Jim Goddamned Lee, for crying out loud. Of course I wouldn't trust someone like you to know who that is, but if you're policing and restricting comic book articles you should at least get informed. Lee qualifies as notable, fan-fave, hot artist and any positive adjetive pertaining to a comic book penciler you can think off. Again, you only show how limited and and unreasonable you are. And there are several others who share my opinion, as shown at the beginning of this talk page. If you truly consider that a woman who looks like how Ross painted her on the current pic is an appropiate depiction of a feminine woman, then you have serious issues, and Power Girl has ever been depicted as feminine for the most part. The current image might get the job half-done and for practical purposes works, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it better. I guess this attitude is why wikipedia is widely regarded as a bad source for reliable information despite the effort some of the contributors put on the articles.

Now take the time to read through my posts this time and tell me, besides the "the image we have is ok and I'm too lazy to change it" arguement, what's the excuse for keeping this image when several people have asked to change it?189.187.223.183 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"The first image is by Jim Goddamned Lee, for crying out loud." Is just about as far as it has to be read.

I'll repeat: The artist doing the work has never been part of the criteria for comic book character infoboxes. Check the comment you're miss-representing, it says the same thing.

Starting from from a point of "I dislike Ross's work" or "Lee's is better because he is better known, has a bigger fan base, or is "hot" at the moment." is not an argument that is going to be taken seriously.

If you are willing to shelve that and look at the guideline that is being used, please point out - succinctly - the points the current image falls short of and how the proposed images correct that without blowing other aspects of the guideline.

Frankly, looking at the 4 replacement options (the IC cover can be cropped) each is a case of either changing shortcomings or adding them. Without moving forward, there is precious little reason to change the image save "It looks ugly", a statement of personal aesthetics at best.

Also...

• "If you truly consider that a woman who looks like how Ross painted her on the current pic is an appropiate depiction of a feminine woman, then you have serious issues..."
• "...besides the 'the image we have is ok and I'm too lazy to change it' arguement,..."

Taking shots at others or putting words in their mouths is not acceptable. Full stop.

- J Greb (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, you end saying putting words in other's mouth is "not" acceptable, yet you just assume I dislike Alex Ross' artwork. I adore what he does, it's just I'm not such a fanboy that I can't admit when he misrepresents a character. But you're right, I misinterpreted your statement, I thought you were saying using Ross' art was preferable because he was of a higher profile, so my apologies for that. We have a saying where I come from, "If you can hear the river, it's because it holds water". Basically it means that when you hear something that seems like a personal opinion at first, several times, coming from several people, then it's not just a personal opinion and there's some truth to it. You can see several people have complained about the image before. Furthermore, I've already read the guidelines and based my previous deconstruction of each image I proposed on it, which makes me think you haven't even bothered reading my posts. The arguement against the current image is NOT "I don't like it 'cause it's ugly", AGAIN, as I said before, it's because it is a visual misrepresentation of the character, not unlike Wolverine standing in a girly manner. And I have the second image (the one with bright white background), without any lettering or any other element that isn't Power Girl, right here in my computer waiting to be approved. In fact I have just finished editing the first image (the Jim Lee one with all those other characters in the background), so it now displays only Power Girl over a black background.

So as you can see, both these images of Power Girl with the white or the black background are the perfect candidate. She is displayed from the front (and her arms do not obscure any part of her costume, unlike the current image), use the most well known representation of her costume and they showcase just as much of it as the current image does. What do these images hold over the current one? They represent the character more faithfully, with a "power" pose, confident expression yet still representing her as femenine. Please, do not state, yet again that this is only my personal opinion, as anyone who checks the image discussions above can clearly see this is an opinion held by many. We're simply trying to make the article better.

189.187.223.183 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, so, no arguements about what the current image holds over the images I'm proposing? Should I simply change the image now?189.187.223.183 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there's no argument about what your proposed image holds over the current image. Is there really a need to change the image, apart from personal aesthetics? DonQuixote (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@189.187.223.183 - 2 appologies: 1) The brush was a bit wide, but it is still coming up as a preference of artist/style. 2) I've been a bit pushed for time of late so I've had to pick and chose edits/comments.

Beyond that...

• Hughes' fanservice piece is a non starter.
• His cover of Power Girl #2 swaps crossed arms and spot lighting (minor issues at best) for the character standing in a shadow and a background that merges with the costume. That is fixing a minor item while adding larger defects.
• Lee's changes the pose from a level face one one (preferable by the guidelines) for a 3/4 view up shot. Again swapping minor for minor.

- J Greb (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem J Greb. You're probably right about the background merging with the costume. But the rationale for changing the image stems from the fact that several people have asked for it to be changed to something that more accurately represents the character. It might come off as preference, but its not an isolated opinion. While the current image presents crossed arms and obscure lightning (which you described as minor problems), it also does not show detail of the boots or how long the cape is, while the Lee image does present a better view of the costume and still represents the character more accurately.

http://www.comicvine.com/power-girl/29-4915/all-images/108-211889/power_girl_aws/105-2046925/

This is the version of the image I'm proposing, as edited by myself. The only problem it seems to have is that Power Girl is not facing directly to the front. Even so, if the two images are still considered to be swapping minor for minor, then what would the rationale be for keeping the current one if several people have asked for it to be changed? Though the character facing front is cited as being preferable, exceptions have been made, such as the image on the Superman article. Hope your time issues don't trouble you further. 189.187.223.183 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Several people asked for the new costume so the article could be up to date with the added bonus of removing an image they found aesthetically displeasing.

All that is being argued at this point is that a new image would be more pleasing to the eye. Any movement forward based on the actual guidelines involved is off set by different failings. That is not an improvement, it is change based on and for personal taste. To fall back on "exceptions have been made" seems to moot any pretense of working with the guidelines.

Have I hit the gist of this?

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. On to the matter at hand yet again: Eerm.. exactly what new costume are you talking about? The only addition to her costume prior to the reboot was a golden pauldron, and some minor detail on the gloves or belt, thats it. She doesn't even have a costume in the new DCnU. For the most part they argued that the picture is indeed "ugly" and that was the motive for their petition. What's important in all of that is that several people did requested an image change. The fact that I have presented you with a suitable replacement (as per the guidelines cited by yourself) for an image that has caused numerous complaints should be enough for you to desist and just let us improve on the article. You just do away with the shortcomings of the present picture, yet try your best to find flaws in new proposed images, and you found *one*, fault, as oppossed to the present picture, which:

*Misrepresents the character as a rather manly female.

*Does not display as much of the costume as the image I proposed (boots, cape length-detail).

*Presents both shading and crossed arms, helping obscure the costume.

*Due to angle, facial features are not as clear as they could be.

What, however is your reasoning for not using the new image?: It does not show the character precisely facing the camera, even though it shows every detail on the costume and face. I'm sorry, but if you were an impartial third party, you would easily see why it obeys reason to swap the pictures. And, but if swapping a picture with 4 flaws for a picture with 1 flaw is not an improvement, then what is? I encourage you to try and be objective on this, this is not about winning a debate, its about doing right by the article and the character. I also encourage you to (in case you and you alone are still determined to keeping the current image) go forth and engage in lengthy discussions in order to change all the other superhero portraits in Wikipedia where the character is not strictly and absolutely following the guidelines. Regards. 189.187.223.183 (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry 189.187.223.183 but you do not either have an image MOS reason, a comics MOS reason, or talk-page consensus for a change to any of your suggested images.
  Also, J Greb is not alone, 2 other editors have expressed their views here - none of them have supported your proposal, but it appears you are not listening. Please stop flogging a dead horse. There is no reason for wikipedia to change this image within wikipedia's policies - this is not a fansite nor is it a public relations site, wikipedia has its rules for what images get used on wikipedia.
  I will also warn you once for failing to use our talk pages properly - accusing J Greb of not being impartial or objective is an assumption of bad faith and is improper conduct--Cailil ^talk 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to the current image but, judging by the criteria here, would the recent Power Girl mini-statue count as an acceptable compromise image? (examples here) I really don't know if spin-off merchandise is appropriate here and every other article uses 2D art. It's obviously not comicbook art (either cover or interior) but it seems to tick all or most of the boxes mentioned: costume is clear, feminine, clear separation from backlground, no shadow, level, non-fan service etc. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• After reading the whole discussion since New Picture, I'm agree that Ross work is timeless, but at this point is clear that his art can't catch the essence of PG. So, I propose the #27 (final) issue cover by Warren Louw, as an easy way to update the article. That image shows a powerful, confident and somehow feminine character and would be more pleasing to the eye. --Simon Le Bon (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@AdamBMorgan

For the most part there is an attempt to match image and source media. That is, stills from a film for an article primarily on a film, screen caps for a TV show, comic book art for comic book characters and so on. Using a statue in this case wouldn't make sense.

@Simon Le Bon

See the guideline problems with Adam Huges in-flight fanservice image. Same ones here. Yes, it's nice art. Yes, it's a nice example of "Good Girl" art. No, it isn't a good candidate for a Wikipedia infobox image.

- J Greb (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Cailil, I'm 189.187.223.183. Have you bothered reading through each post here? Why do I get the feeling everybody else is blind? There have been, by my count up to 10 different users, both with an account and without one that have requested that the image be changed and/or suggested other images. 11, if you count me. Yes, I saw there have been other 2, possibly more, not exceeding 5 or 6 that want to keep the current image. So please, don't try and tell me numbers matter here. I have already read all the guidelines. The current image obscures part of the character and the image I'm proposing does not, and in fact it displays the costume more prominently. It is you guys who can't provide a reason to NOT change the image other than things like "its already there" or "your image is not facing the front" (I'm not quoting any of you, by the way).

READ THIS, IF ONLY THIS: I am using VALID arguments, using WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES to request that the image be changed. Your image obscures parts of the costume, it does not show detail on legs, boots or cape and misrepresents the character. It's only saving grace is that she's facing forward (actually, she's facing upwards and staring forwards). I was not the first to bring this up, and even if everything remains unchanged, I won't be the last. Why do you wish to have this arguement over and over again with every new user seeking to change the image? I'm sure J Greb as other, more pressing business to attend to. The image I'm proposing complies to a fault with the guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(comics)#Images . Please, don't retort again with an arguement reeking of TL:DR.NGK-Lion (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like to point out a few errors. It is not up to others to show why the the current image should not be changed. It's up to you to show why your image is better than the current image (burden of proof). "Misrepresenting the character", "manly" and "feminine" are POVs which not everyone may hold, so they won't go far in supporting an argument.

But you do have a point about showing the entire costume (boots), which does comply with the guidelines you reference.

Also, keep in mind that, as mentioned above, this isn't a fansite, so the image doesn't have to be (and doesn't need to be) one that you may agree with. DonQuixote (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I know I have to present arguements for why the image should be changed, and so I have. The thing is, there is nothing the current image has that makes it more eligible than the one I'm suggesting, which I even edited myself in order to comply with the guidelines. The thing is the image I'm suggesting better displays the costume and even facial features (even if she is not facing directly forward). By misrepresentation of character I mean that you wouldn't dare put an image of Adam West dancing in bat-costume in the Batman article, would you? It does not accurately portray the character. Anyone familiar with the character of Power Girl knows she's not what the current image conveys, but if this is still seen as a POV arguement, then fine, the current image still doesn't fully display the costume. I see no reason why the new image should be repelled, as it does nothing but improve the visual data of the article.NGK-Lion (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This topic needs a more solid consensus. For example, according the last WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE #2,4 the above discussed image "hide significant areas of the character in shadow" because Ross draw it with crossed arms, and maybe don't fit well with the #2,6 rule "Heavily stylised art should only be considered for use when the character is closely associated with the style to the exclusion of less extreme styles", which makes you think about the possibility of asking for a review of the current box image. --Simon Le Bon (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I still say the current image is fine and doesn't need replacing. That said out of the suggested images, Simon Le Bon's suggestion is the best.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, "misrepresenting" the character is your POV (and yes, I'm familiar with the character--have every issue, including the first series). How does the current image "not accurately portray the character"?

And you're still making the same logic error. "[T]here is nothing the current image has that makes it more eligible than the one I'm suggesting" is the same as "there is nothing your image has that makes it more eligible than the current one". Given that, the burden of proof is on you, that is you have to show how your image is better. DonQuixote (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been hesitant to enter this debate, but I have to cast a vote in favor of changing the image. This is my reason: In the 27 issues of Power Girl’s series, she has had a more consistent look than the character has ever had, from changing necklines in the Bronze Age, different uniforms in the 90s and varying differences, such as cuffed boots and gloves, between then and issue #1 in 2009. So, I would argue that she now has a recognizable primary costume that has several differences from the Ross image:

• Piping on the body suit and gloves.
• Shorter cape reaching just below her hips, rather than the cape in the Ross image which goes past her thighs.
• Golden pauldron on her shoulder.
• Body hugging belt, rather than the off-the-hips belt in the Ross image.

When you break it down, there are only six pieces to PG's costume (body suit, cape, belt, gloves, boots and cape chain), and five of them are different from what is portrayed in the Ross image (we don't see the boots). You may argue that these are small details, but ask yourself this: What if the image of Superman showed him with the post "Our Worlds at War" red and black S symbol? Certainly a small detail, but does it accurately show the primary costume?

I'd also like to suggest that certain arguments made for rejecting alternate images do not follow the established guidelines:

• Rejecting an image that has the pauldron is an argument based on aesthetic preference. It is undeniable that it is part of her costume and has been for several years.
• Rejecting images because they are in the style of pin-ups or calling them fanservice is not supported by the guidelines. Sexuality is an important part of the character. While I don’t think it is a must for any image to reflect her sexuality, it would be appropriate as long as the image is not obscene.

I agree that we have not reached consensus but I did want to list, in a reasonable and objective fashion, some of my reasons why a new image might be better. Mookie89 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• @DonQuixote You seem to be interpreting what I said as you see fit. Saying that the current image holds nothing over the one I'm suggesting does not automatically mean the same for my image. I am indeed stating that the image I suggest does not obscure any parts of the costume, it displays more of said costume and even has better detail on the face. Even if you want to consider misrepresentation as POV, you can't deny these other facts. As the suggested image does a better job of displaying the character in all, I am proving that it is a suitable candidate to replace the current picture. Also, and only since you ask, it misrepresent the character in that, while Power Girl has, decades ago, been portrayed as a very feminist tough woman often at odds with old-fashioned men like Wildcat, her current characterization is nothing like the current picture suggest. Though she is a powerful female, both physically and psychologically, she is not so in a way that would make her less femenine. In most comics, you can see she is a beautiful female with an athletic physique and attractive facial features, the current image is closer to a body builder. The Amanda Conner PG series as you know, is credited with fleshing out her personality like it hadn't been done before, gave her more dimensions. The overall character as it is today is not effectively represented by that image, the same as 1950's Batman does not accurately represent today's Batman.

I also support Mookie89 in that the more modern costume should be eligible (pauldron, costume detail). Only reason why I didn't request for an image of it is because it seemed arguing that point with J Greb was pointless. NGK-Lion (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what I'm doing. I saying that arguing that the current image is no better than your image is invalid simply because it's equivalent to saying that your image is no better than the current image. Instead, the preferred argument is to show how your image is better. And as for "misrepresentation", how is the current image "less femenine[sic]"? DonQuixote (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you have the argument that the proposed image better displays both costume and character. What is and what is not feminine* (had a typo there) is, of course, subjective to a certain extent. However, in popular western culture (from where both Power Girl and the main demographic DC comics attracts come from) an overly-muscled appearance, aggressive demeanor and body language and "harsh" (if you will) facial features are all considered to be non-feminine traits. Power Girl has always been a strong female character, but her canon characterization is not really that of someone who exhibits the previously mentioned traits. I mean, the article itself cites that Alex Ross gives Power Girl the appearance of "an ardent bodybuilder". "Ardent bodybuilder" is not a phrase that one would instantly relate to the concept of femininity. Thus, the current image is less feminine than the one I suggest be used.NGK-Lion (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing discussion. No consensus has been reached and is filibustering.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (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.

A word

Well that was mature. There's proof in this very article of my points. I have made no edits, nor have engaged in war-editing, but have reasonably asked for the image to be changed presenting sound arguments: That is not filibustering. It's clear to me then that improving the article is not within the interests of the people I've discussed with. Have fun engaging in the same debate when someone else ask for the image to be changed, because this point will come up again.NGK-Lion (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Sorry you didn't get your way.
2. Hate to say this, but but between you singular focus and use of dynamic IPs, you may have hurt later debates unless this is left alone for some time.
3. Trolling is uncalled for. Accept the close and move on, edit/work on something else.

- J Greb (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh... and one more thing: This isn't a request to reignite the discussion, just pointing out where to go from here. If need be the thread can be closed to hammer that point home.

- J Greb (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not logging on. First time I opened the discussion I forgot to log in, so I wanted to avoid confusion, or giving the appearance of using sockpuppets. You should not just assume ill-intent on my part, and sarcasm and/or threats are uncalled for, double standards are so ugly. And sure, maybe I'll go change the image on the Superman article, it's so outrageously not in line with the guidelines. Cheers, mate.NGK-Lion (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe we're still stuck with the mannish Alex Ross image

Seriously? Ichormosquito (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, only waiting a month. With your first post on anything in over a year? How about we let the horse recover from its trip to the glue factory before going around on this again?

- J Greb (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Some "appearances" aren't worth noting

I just deleted an utterly mundane appearance from the Miscellaneous section. I mean, really, if we're going to include background images where a camera just happens to catch a random image of a comic book cover, then articles on superheroes are going to be overloaded whenever a film or TV show happens to set a scene in a comic book store. 68.146.70.177 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Better image

Hello, I'd like to improve the article's image with the new World's Finest art. What do you think? --211.76.40.195 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The new World's Finest costume is not Power Girl's most universally recognizable costume and should not be used as the main infobox image per WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)