Talk:Wonder Woman

Talk:Wonder Woman
Former good article nomineeWonder Woman was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 11, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
November 22, 2012Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Lead image

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this image Here is better because it showcases her throughout the years. Should the current image be replaced? I'm unsure if changing it would be appropriate, as it could be a controversial edit, so I wanted to bring it up here first. Lililolol (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have uploaded that image because I think having an all-encompassing cover of the subject character makes more sense than one with recentism bias. It may be found at File:Wonder Woman 750.jpg. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content dispute (discussion of February 8, 2026, status: Ended)

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A discussion regarding the current WP:Content dispute surrounding the evolving origin of Wonder Woman as being either Amazonian, Olympian, clay, or some amalgamation therefore, can be found at User talk:AmazonianGoddess#Wonder Woman edits, per their stated preference.

All editors interested in participating in such a discussion, and able to participate constructively, are welcome and encouraged to engage in the discussion there. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, user Red Shogun. Let me add some words, I want to inform to anyone who might read this, that the discussion of Wonder Woman's origin at February 8, 2026 actually has been ended since all editors involved at that time, we have agreed. The discussion happened at my talk page and also in "edit warring" page (but now it's gone). Editors involved at that time now have had the same understanding of information. It's clear. Lastly, yes, I do welcome anyone to my talk page but if the person isn't civil and saying non-sense then I wouldn't engage with it. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Although I am belatedly involved in this discussion (though I had made an edit prior to Feb. 8), I still dispute how the origin is presented (as I said on your Talk page directly, so I do not know why you have labeled this resolved) and intend to make a fuller post on this Talk page regarding certain aspects around how the main article talks about it (including the dismissal of recent DC-published works that used the clay origin as nonconforming and the sourcing used to justify the status of the Zeus origin) soon. Wolv022 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Policy regarding canonicity of Wonder Woman's origin, contradictory sources for it, and change over time

Latest comment: 16 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to discuss how the Wonder Woman Wikipedia page should discuss her origins. I had made some edits to the page on February 6, 2026, which were reverted (without my realizing, due to being unfamiliar with Wikipedia in particular), directly preceding @Red Shogun412's creation of a topic regarding a Wikipedia:Content dispute. Since then, I have engaged with @AmazonianGoddess on the dispute, rather than trying to force my edits, trying to either justify my edits or find a compromise. However, as no consensus was reached on any issue, I wish to bring the discussion here to have additional voices. As I have seen them mentioned by @AmazonianGoddess as having been involved, I would like to specifically mention @Trailblazer101, @Daniel Case, @EvergreenFir @Red Shogun412, though anyone is free to contribute, obviously. Apologies to any of the mentioned who do not wish to participate.

1) The first change that I feel needs to be made is a direct factual one: The article, since 11:43 November 27, 2025, has said that the "Darkseid War" event is an example of a DC Rebirth storyline ("Multiple runs in Rebirth, including in "The Darkseid War" series, still show Diana as the daughter of Zeus[...]"). I do not know how to describe this any other way than simply as being "incorrect". Wikipedia's own page for Darkseid War states that it was "It is the final storyline to feature the Justice League in the 2011 New 52 continuity, until DC transitioned to the continuity of DC Rebirth." The issues of the event lack the "DC Universe Rebirth" banner, the event began over a year before the start of DC Rebirth (which began in June 2016 and nearly a year before it was even announced as Wikipedia's page for DC Rebirth notes ("The following month, DC announced its Rebirth initiative, a line-wide relaunch of its titles, to begin in June 2016. Beginning with an 80-page one-shot which was released on May 25, 2016, Rebirth returned Action Comics and Detective Comics to their previous numbering (#957 and #934, respectively).")), and every issue released prior to DCU: Rebirth #1 (save for the last issue of the event, releasing the same day). I asked @AmazonianGoddess why they labeled it being part of DC Rebirth, but did not receive any particular reason.

2) The second change I would propose is removal of mentions of a "guideline". There's three instances of a guideline being mentioned. The first is in relation to the aforementioned erroneous mention of "Darkseid War" as a DC Rebirth event while the latter two are in the "2020s" subsection of the page. None of the sources currently cited support the existence of a particular "guideline". The first mentions cites only a collected edition (DC Essential Edition) for "Justice League: The Darkseid War" (collected in 2018), specifically an Indonesian listing for the book. The latter two uses cite a fan-created Comic Vine "Respect Thread" for Wonder Woman (initial post created on April 9, 2017; AmazonianGoddess has stated it is cited in order to indirectly cite one of the forum post's sources; I presume the particular source to be Wonder Woman #0, at the start of the post) and a Comic Basics article (publ. April 11, 2023). The latter two are not official DC sources and thus not able to be taken as evidence of a "guideline" DC Comics has internally. The first source is published by DC Comics, but it is a collected edition for a New 52 story, so I don't see why it would serve to establish the existence of an internal "guideline" (and would not necessarily hold true today, 8 years later, even if it did). DC Comics' bio on their own website, [1], makes no mention of Zeus (nor clay), which seems to indicate that it is not part of any internal "guideline" that may or may not exist (which is why the "guideline" is being invoked in the first place).

3) Third, I believe article should change how it discusses Tom King's run and Mark Waid's New History of the DC Universe, specifically in the "2020s" subsection. The article currently characterizes Tom King as being "out of line" in his Wonder Woman, based on the "guideline". As stated above, I don't believe a "guideline" stating that Diana is the daughter of Zeus exists. Additionally, I will note that the Comics Vine "Respect Thread's" source for Diana as Zeus' daughter dates back to Wonder Woman #0 (publ. Sept. 2012), over a decade before Tom King's run began, while the Comic Basics article was published approx. half a year before Tom King's run and wholly lacking citations (I also am unsure if it is accurate in stating that Diana both is the daughter of Zeus and has the strength of Demeter, as I believe the latter was never stated that while the Zeus origin has been canon; AmazonianGoddess says it has, but has not provided a source, so I am unsure if I am correct on this point). I do not see why exactly non-DC sources would be considered more credible than a major title edited by a Senior Editor at DC (Brittany Holzherr) in terms of what DC editorial considers correct.

3.5) (Cont. from above point) For Mark Waid's New History of the DC Universe, the books is mentioned solely downplay its credibility as a as a source, reasoning that the book is not actually stating what is currently canon, but instead only stating what *was canon at the time*. I find this characterization inaccurate. The only source cited for this is a books listing for the collected series, which seems to confirm the opposite, describing the series with: "Starting from the very earliest days of the Justice Society of America in the Golden Age of the DCU and racing through each major era thereafter, The New History of the DC Universe is a genre-defying, definitive look at the world's most popular superheroes." DC's own website made PDFs of the appendix timelines for 3 of the 4 issues available for free, with the page stating that "Full issues of this ambitious series can be found at your local comic shop or read on DC UNIVERSE INFINITE, but below you’ll find PDFs of the official timeline contained within each issue." (Emphasis mine.) I do not see why exactly it should not be considered a proper source for current canon. While the book, admittedly, does have errors, it notably was edited by Senior Editor Brittany Holzherr, editor for Wonder Woman as noted above, so I don't see why it would be incorrect on such a major detail.

4) A final change I made, though less related to the question of what is Diana's origin, is that I rewrote the end of the "2010s" section. I found the latter part of the paragraph dedicated to DC Rebirth, beginning with the sentence beginning "Despite the turmoil thing that Greg Rucka had done in the Rebirth era [...]", to be imprecise and vague (as well as containing the erroneous reference to "Darkseid War" as a Rebirth storyline), and thus rewrote it refer to retcons by Greg Rucka and instead cite James Robinson's subsequent run as a proper source for Diana's origin remaining tied to Zeus (as Robinson's 2017-2018 run properly introduced and heavily involved Jason, Diana's twin brother first shown in the epilogue of "Darkseid War").

As a final note, there has been discussion of a 2026 DC Encyclopedia (to be released March 3, 2026) and its entry for Wonder Woman (shown in previews for the encyclopedia) referring to Diana as the daughter of Zeus as proof of a "guideline" incorporating her New 52 origin as the definitive origin. Setting aside that this is a post hoc justification (the Encyclopedia was only announced on January 19, 2026, as far as I can tell, while the "guideline" began being referenced in November 2025), I personally do not view a text-based supplemental book as more authoritative than the comic-based New History of the DC Universe. However, for those that disagree, I will also note that the previews (which can be viewed [2]) show Superman's entry, which clearly follows the Superman: Secret Origin story. However, DC Comics is currently publishing a run by Mark Waid in Action Comics centering on Clark Kent's time as Superboy. The run began as part of the "Summer of Superman" initiative, with a soft launch in the Summer of Superman Special #1's first chapter (written by Waid) and began properly in Action Comics #1087. This run directly contradicts Superman: Secret Origin, depicting Clark as being active as Superboy in Smallville, Lana being unaware of his powers, and Clark lacking his Heat Vision as Superboy (among other powers). If these previews are finalized versions of the entries, then the Encyclopedia would appear to be out of date from the moment of release for at least Superman, which makes me doubt its credibility for other entries.

Apologies for being so long-winded in making my case for the edits, but I would rather lay out what I know from the start, rather than doing so only after an editing war. Wolv022 (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jeezus, that is a big WP:WALLOFTEXT. I have not been keeping up on the matters of this article or debate, and honestly do not wish to engage with it any further than I already have. The character's comic history is convoluted at best, so if there is an issue or material being contested here, it is up to the concerned parties to hash it out and come to a compromise. If those efforts do not yield a result, then I would advise it to be taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard for third-party individuals to weigh in. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I figured I might have made my post too long, but I wasn't sure. My dispute essentially boils down to feeling like AmazonianGoddess wants to preserve what they have written, without any real explanation why certain things are the way they are. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I wasn't aware of where aware of where exactly a specific arbitration venue could be found (I recall checking a page about dispute resolution, but didn't see any mention of the noticeboard. I'll likely take this there in a couple days, once anyone else who wants to have chimed in.
I appreciate the help/advice. Sorry again for bothering you on this. Wolv022 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, for your information, user Wolv022 and me already had our discussion in my talk page. But, despite all the explanations that I have made to them, despite all the words that I have typed to them, they are still stubborn, denying the truth when DC Comics Company itself stating that, even when the official material from DC Company such as the official up-to-date DC Encyclopedia books, including the 2026 edition, saying that, regarding Wonder Woman's origin, and it's literally an encyclopedia book, it means a book of work that provides knowledge about the world of DC. Even I tried to help user @Red Shogun412 to get more information about the encyclopedia.
And somehow, I feel like user Wolf022 wants other editors to follow their way, they were stubbornly denial just because it's not their way. Despite at February 8, 2026, We were all already agree, in that discussion, we were already agree, cool with each other. Remember that? User Trailblazer?. We were all agreed, cool, living in peace. And then, user Wolv came.

Somehow, suddenly user Wolv022 came to me, demanding to follow their way, that they don't believe that "this is right". Despite the proofs are clear, what the DC Company states, that the company is the one who decides thing, not the writers. And how in comics generally Wonder Woman is depicted as the daughter of Zeus, and also, DC Comics Company affirming the Zeus origin for Wonder Woman with their DC Encyclopedia books that are up-to-date, the encyclopedia books itself, from the company, affirming that, including the 2026 edition, it's affirmed again, we were agreed with that with other editors at February 8, remember? User @Trailblazer101?. My edits are compliant with what DC states.

Even Jim Lee the current president of DC Comics Company, made the foreword, written in the book cover. I already explained it, including about the Wonder Woman run by current writer and the history summary book of DC world's existence by Mark Waid. But it's no use for a stubborn person, no matter what I say to them.

Just look at my talk page, my discussion with them, I already explaining and explaining. But they were being disrespectful by accusing me of things, and also just stubbornly denial. So, let's just say, it's just user Wolv022 who has a matter. I don't. I knew how they were being disrespectful to me and how stubborn they are despite my explanation that literally clear, despite what DC Company upholds. That's why, I refuse to engage with them again.
I don't need any "editors dispute resolution", because I don't need it, I don't have any matter with anyone right now, I don't have any intention to have a dispute, I don't have a matter with anyone right now.

It's just from user Wolv, like, they can't leave me alone when they were the one who denied my explanation. Only them who have a matter to me. No matter what I say if they are denial, then it's no use for me, wasting my energy, plus they accused me too. I refuse to engage with them, someone who was being disrespectful to me and who is stubbornly denial, not worth my energy. Just see my talk page and my discussion with them, it was suffocating for me. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, not to sound harsh or anything, but I honestly couldn't care less about this whole ordeal. From my perspective, this is being blown out of proportion from both ends. I primarily edit film and TV articles, not really comic character ones, but I gave my two cents. I don't think anyone else would be willing to get in the middle of this, and I don't think either one of you repeating your arguments in several paragraphs is going to get anyone on board. This is just WP:BLUDGEONING the whole discussion. If neither of you are willing to take your concerns in this dispute to the proper channels, then there is really nothing else I or anyone else can do here without requesting full page protection to prevent edit warring. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 06:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, @Trailblazer101 👋👋, I know, right? To be honest, I don't want to be in the middle of this, like you said. I agree with you that no one else would want to be involved in this. To be honest, I just want to enjoy my life. I mean, our discussion on February 8 ended. All editors agreed; we're all cool now. I already forgave your mistake. Like, we were at peace for days. It's all clear. We have peace; it's all cool. Clear information for the editors who were involved at that time.
But then, somehow, user Wolv came, and they want their way to be followed. I mean, I already tried my best to explain to them. But if you look at our discussion on my talk page, that user just accused me and was just stubborn in our discussion on my talk page. I swear, I was suffocated handling them, and I felt I was being disrespected by their accusation, like I am a "nonsense" editor or something. I ended our discussion because I won't engage with someone who disrespected me and talks nonsense. I ended our discussion, and suddenly they tagged me here, and you too are tagged. I don't have any dispute. I don't have any matter. I just want to be left alone, to be honest. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wow I read some of this and all I can think is that all of you are weird. You all seem very obsessed with Wonder Woman's origin when in reality it's simple. Clay to Zeus now back to Clay. The simple fact is the lead of this article is a mess. It contains barely any information about Wonder woman's history, stories, or any important information about her as a character. Instead almost half of it is concerning a discrepancy with her origin. Where's information about her titles? Supporting cast? I see no mention of Donna Troy or Cassie. Famous stories? Greg Rucka? Gail Simone? Compare this lead to Batman and Superman's and its night and day. Some real editing needs to be done to this lead beyond the origin.
Also based on their phrasing, does anyone else think Trailblazer sounds like a dismissive tool. ~2026-42559-97 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@~2026-42559-97 With respect, it's not about obsession, it's simple, actually. It's about editing based on what happens. DC Comics itself still markets Wonder Woman as the daughter of Zeus, despite what happens in the character's recent comic book runs. From their reference books, the DC Encyclopedia https://www.amazon.com/DC-Encyclopedia-New-DK/dp/B0F47RKDDL, to recent Wonder Woman toys on the DC Comics website https://www.dc.com/, and official toy shops, to DC Comics with Fortnite, which is the biggest game in the world, DC Comics still mentions Wonder Woman as the daughter of Zeus.

Also, let me remind you that Wonder Woman is a fictional character owned by DC Comics Inc. DC Comics decides what happens to the character, NOT the writers of comic books who are just hired, they have no authority to decide these characters' fate. And New History of the DC Universe by Mark Waid is a book that summarizes 90 years of the DC Universe's history. It's not a book for what happens right now. It's a book that summarizes the history of the DC Universe. That's why clay origin is mentioned in that book. Hope this can help https://books.google.com/books?id=NRVC0QEACAAJ.

Lastly, the argument that says Tom King's Wonder Woman books are published by DC Comics, yes it's true, after all DC Comics might let the writers that they hired to enter their own ideas while writing the books.

But after all, DC Encyclopedia books >>> comic books written by authors.

Because DC Encyclopedia books are described as REFERENCE books, the true source, the definitive guide, it's written there. This is the same goes to Marvel Comics because Dorling Kindersley have partnered both with DC Comics and Marvel Comics to release reference books of each corporate.

Some editors think they can delete an edit as they please without a reliable backup just because they have a bias or dislike an official book.

AmazonianGoddess (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to just once again point out that your description of The New History of the DC Universe is incoherent to the point that I cannot understand what you actually claim it is. You say it is about the history of the DC Universe, but not about canon and have never clarified what you mean by that. Do you mean it's meant to be a history DC's publishing history? If so, that's just demonstrably false, but I can't figure out what else you could possibly mean to reach the conclusion that a book about in-universe history/chronology actually is in no way indicative of what is an isn't canon.
I'll also note that your link for DC's website is just to the main page, which provides no evidence (meanwhile, her character page makes no mention of Zeus or clay), nor do I believe toys or in-game descriptions in Fortnite can in any way be considered equivalent to the comics themselves in terms of canonicity. It certainly wouldn't affect the comics canon, her primary form of media.
And I will end with once again reiterating that The New History of the DC Universe is not some project created solely by Mark Waid. It is a work published DC Comics, and like every single other comic published by DC Comics, it is edited and approved by DC Comics' editorial. Every word in that book was reviewed and signed off by one or more editors involved, just like every word and panel in Tom King's in-continuity Wonder Woman run is signed off on by editors, including when he referenced the Clay Origin and when had he Diana chop of Zeus' leg while calling him a liar (it felt origin-related, but it also didn't make much sense). In fact, the editor in charge of both books is the some woman: Senior Editor Brittany Holzherr, who is editorially in charge of Wonder Woman and Titans-related books. Wolv022 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lead

Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is so messy and clunky and feels poorly organized. The lead name drops a bunch of the character's villains, like, are most of them significant enough to be mentioned there? There's a random paragraph about the character being one of the most powerful, which feels completely out of place, and a bunch of unnecessary details, like the character being based on someone's partner. It also lists a ton of voice actors without even saying what media they voiced the character in. Lililolol (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree the lead is a mess compared to the leads for Batman and Superman. However, her enemies should be included. Those are her notable adversaries. Look at the leads for superman and batman and they include some enemies and their supporting casts. Wonder woman may not have as popular a rogues gallery but those are her main villains.
What I think should be added however is more concise information about her history and a better worded overview of her character. There should also be more details about her supporting cast like the leads for batman and superman. In addition some information about her famous stories, runs, or even titles she's been involved in should be included. You're correct, right now its a jumbled mess of facts, particularly the paragraph about her origin. ~2026-42559-97 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.