Talk:Wonder Girl

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Actual first appearances

In the grand scheme of world politics, this is less than nothing. However, I feel that enough laziness and misinformation has persisted on the definitions of the first appearances of this character for too long a time that I finally have to chime in. I was a regular reader of Wonder Woman for over 30 years and had every single issue of the regular series from the introduction of Ross Andru as the regular interior artist and the beginning of the silver age from volume 1, number 98 in 1958 to the first dozen or so issues of volume 4 that launched in 2011 - so, every single one of well over 500 consecutive issues, and I read every single one.

Wonder Woman number 23 from 1947 is the first time they ever showed Wonder Woman as a girl, and she was the backup story in that issue and, I think, one more in an issue soon thereafter. However, this was only an isolated appearance or two and the character was not seen again until a whole 12 years later in number 105 from 1959 where, via that new character of Wonder Girl, they retold the origin of Wonder Woman for the first time in years. With that/those 1947 appearance(s) having been such isolated appearances, and with a radically different costume from what we saw starting in 1959 and that we would continue to see consistently for a whole decade, from what would come a whole 12 years later, I don't even think that this/these appearance(s) from 1947 can even be classified as a prototype. "Wonder Woman as a girl" is not the same as "Wonder Girl".

I don't know when, exactly, it was that the name "Donna Troy" was first used/uttered (although I know it wasn't until several years after 1959 and dozens of appearances of the character where she was always referred to, by name, as "Diana"), however that being applied to the character of Wonder Girl, years after the fact of her first appearance in number 105 and years of subsequent regular appearances and consistent continuity in both the pages of Wonder Woman and then Brave and the Bold and then Teen Titans thereafter, there really can't be any confusion that the character we see joining the Teen Titans in Brave and the Bold number 60 from 1965 was not the same as we saw in Wonder Woman number 105 from 1959. They are the same character. Any actual identification of her as "Donna Troy" and new reveal of a totally invented backstory that we had never seen before was applied only retroactively (the latter of which perhaps not until as late as DC Super Stars number 1 from 1976), and that is only revisionism that doesn't change the facts of Wonder Woman 105 being the first appearance of this character in any fashion in a long time and having begun the established, consistent continuity and unchanged costume depiction of the character in regular appearances in dozens of issues of Wonder Woman and The Brave and The Bold and The Teen Titans for years. As far as any actual rendition of any Wonder Girl character, as well as the "Donna Troy" iteration of the Wonder Girl character, Wonder Woman number 105 is the first appearance of both. Period.

Proclamations by any "authority", such as the CGC, on their label for B&B number 60 being "First Appearance of the new Wonder Girl (Donna Troy)", while totally omitting any such mention of the character on their label for WW 105, are signs of inexpert-level familiarity (regardless of whether they base their labels on Overstreet definitions) with the character and its continuity, and this is further perpetuated to collectors who may, one day, find themselves on the short end of the investment stick. First appearances of any further renditions of the character, such as the Cassie Sandsmark one, are irrelevant to the undeniable centrality of Wonder Woman number 105. QuakerIlK (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This article is an overview of the varied characters who have been referred to as Wonder Girl, and I understand the facts you lay out. But I'm not sure I'm understanding whether you believe this Wikipedia article is presenting info incorrectly, or you are just making the point that other sources like the CGC present misinformation. If it's the latter, this talk page is not the place for this argument. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman number 105 isn't even listed at all under "First Appearances" in the info box on the article page. And, yes, mentioning authorities extraneous to Wikipedia IS relevant, seeing as Wikipedia has become such a large authority, itself. It is easier to perpetuate misinformation if it isn't gotten right on Wikipedia. With influentiality comes responsibility. QuakerIlK (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lead pgh reads The Wonder Girl alias was first used for a teenage version of Wonder Woman in Wonder Woman #105 (April 1959). The section Wonder Girl#Diana reads Wonder Girl first appeared in The Secret Origin of Wonder Woman, written and edited by Robert Kanigher, in Wonder Woman #105 (April 1959). Issue #105 is not mentioned in the infobox because apparently the first "Wonder Woman as a girl" appearance was Wonder Woman #23 (May/June 1947). You argue that the 1947 appearance represents "an isolated appearance or two", but to me that does not nullify the fact that it is the first appearance of young Diana.— TAnthony^Talk 19:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I also said that the costumes for the appearance in 1947 and 1959 were radically different. (Moreover, the appearance in 1947 was from her childhood - she was only 7 years old [1] (scroll down) Queen Hippolyte shows the Holliday Girls a home movie of Princess Diana on her 7th birthday, far from being the teenager who became part of the "Teen Titans".) The first appearance in 1947 was isolated; it built no continuity. "A young Diana" does not necessarily constitute "Wonder Girl". An inception followed very soon by frequent appearances and a consistent costume and transfer over to other titles, where she is consistently referred to as "Wonder Girl" does do a much better job of constituting "Wonder Girl". If it is treated with more weight in the article body at the onset, it should belong in the infobox. QuakerIlK (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand the nuance you're pointing out about the 1947 vs. 1959 appearances. However, we have to be careful about how we incorporate it. The idea that the 1947 appearance is not "Wonder Girl" may be correct, but it's definitely POV and original research. There is no reliable source that makes these conclusions, and editor opinions and editorializing have no place in WP articles. That said, I looked at your new entry and will make some tweaks that will hopefully satisfy you but also stay within guidelines. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [2], you tried simplifying the statement, but the content replacement you made ends up attributing information from one source to another source, incorrectly. In addition, you deleted a fair bit of material that highlights the contradiction in the recognition of the first appearances of the character. I would suggest undoing the edit. As for your claims of this being POV and OR, I think that you, as others do, are confusing an original discovery with original research. They are not the same thing. I merely showed the discrepancies between two sources and helped provide clarity.QuakerIlK (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in this edit [3], you unilaterally changed the first appearance in the infobox without actually adding a source that specifically states that, so really, you should undo that edit, also. While Wonder Woman #105 from April 1959 being the first appearance of Wonder Girl is something I feel and think to be true as a very long-time reader and collector, I certainly never actually changed the first appearance like you did. I started out by talking about it on this talk page and I pointed out discrepancies. Then, in the article body, I added sources that highlighted those discrepancies. (I certainly didn't actually jump all the way to changing the first appearance. I was concerned with process, not just truth.) You are, thus, in no position to lecture on POV. Back to the "original research" claim you made...Just because something is original to Wikipedia and research, does not make it original research. Assuming so is the same kind of logic that adds 1 and 2 and comes up with 12. QuakerIlK (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]