Talk:Cultural impact of Wonder Woman/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Muppet Show
In this, the character, Miss Piggy transforms into a character similar to Wonder Woman. 65.163.112.225 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's true...and it's already mentioned in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 11:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Its not at all. 65.173.104.140 05:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Title change
This is a list and the title should be changed to reflect this fact. I would suggest using this article as a model: List of artistic depictions of Beowulf. -Classicfilms 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. This isn't a discussion of "cultural impact", it's a list of portrayals, parodies, mentions of WW, or people in a WW costumes. Do we really need every single time someone says "Wonder Woman" on TV listed? --Noclevername (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Image issues
The fair use of image:WonderRoz.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy
Currently the image is a decoration in a list/trivia section - the text should just as clearly convey the information. Is there more to this use?
If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.
The issue with WonderRoz.jpg has been addressed.
- J Greb (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Costume comparisons
Recently, i removed a side-by-side comparison of the Wonder Woman images (one from Kramer's recent jacketed version and the other featuring Adrienne Palicki's second - or third? - costume) because I thought it was an evaluative step, à la Synthesis. It was an editor making the comparison, and not an explicit comparison by a reliable source.
That change was reverted this morning, the explanation being that the following citation was enough to validate the comparison; I've emboldened the bit that I am presuming the editor doing the revert supports the comparison:
- “I haven’t seen anything on ‘Superman,’" Harras replied. “I’ve seen some sketches for the Wonder Woman costume and I will say this today – there is every intent to make them similar. People do these TV shows and these movies because they love the characters. And with DC being able to work much more closely with Warner Bros, I think you’ll be happy with what comes across.”
""Every intent to make them similar" is not the same as 'here is a comparison of the two'. IMO, the citation isn't explicit enough to support an editor going out, making an evaluation that one costume more closely resembles a photograph of an actor wearing a costume design. More exactly, the citation notes a similarity; it doesn't point to any particular design being used to draw the similarity. In point of fact, the single similarity between the two designs is that they both have long pants/leggings instead of the French-cut briefs. More on point, Cathy Lee Crosby's costume bears more similarities to the current comic costume (jacket, pants, etc.) than NBC's designed costume for Palicki. Granted, that's my opinion, but that's precisely my point: without a specific, explicit citation comparing two costumes, we aren't allowed to insert our own evaluation of two different costumes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Controversy over 2011 pilot
I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion, but quite a few online reviews of the NBC pilot, and blogs, have made mention (and made issue) of the fact that Wonder Woman kills a man in cold blood (throwing a pipe through his throat) and tortures another in the pilot. Question is whether scenes, controversial or otherwise, in a pilot that may never achieve a public showing (legally, anyway) is notable enough for discussion. I don't know the answer to that, so rather than adding material on this issue, I'll put the question out for discussion. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)