Talk:Wonder Woman (2017 film)

Where Is "1917" Coming From? Evidence Says 1918

In Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bruce Wayne looks at the photo of Diana in WWI. It is the photo that is taken during the events of Wonder Woman. And it is clearly labelled as "November 1918". If you don't believe me, here is the clip from the film. As well as this, the film presents itself as being 1918, as it is in the final days of WWI. The article also says "1918-era London" and is in the category "Films set in 1918".

So why does the "Plot" section say it takes place in 1917? Where's this coming from? The only time I have ever seen 1917 mentioned in relation to the film is the Wonder Woman 1984 panel at SDCC 2018, where "1917" was mentioned as a mistake. If there's a source for it taking place in 1917 and not, as both Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and, seemingly, Wonder Woman suggest, 1918, could someone provide it/explain?BEJT1 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

First, a primary source can't be used as a secondary source for another primary source, so that clip from Batman v Superman is irrelevant to this article. As to 1917, I don't remember any year being explicitly mentioned in this movie, so it should probably be removed from the plot summary (unless I've missed it). However, if reliable secondary sources are mentioning 1917 (or 1918), then it can be mentioned in other sections. DonQuixote (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely it is not irrelevant to the article, just primary sources from Wonder Woman would take precedence in this article. But if there are indeed no primary sources from Wonder Woman, are you saying that there should therefore be no year given in the plot section because the film as a standalone does not give a year, but that "1918" would be mentioned in other sections due to it being confirmed outside of the film?BEJT1 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

While Batman v Superman might not be irrelevant to this article as a whole, its contents are irrelevant to plot summary of this article. And yes, the rest about sums it up. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So the plot is irrelevant to the summary of the plot. What? 72.181.99.6 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The plot of another work of fiction is irrelevant to the plot summary of this work of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

OK that makes sense. So if no one has a primary source behind 1917, then the plot summary should be changed. It currently says, "Although she initially forbids Diana to be trained as a warrior, Hippolyta reluctantly agrees to let Antiope train Diana, only more rigorously than any other warrior. In 1917, Diana, now a young woman, rescues American pilot Captain Steve Trevor when his plane crashes off the Themysciran coast." Should it be changed to something like "During World War I, Diana, now a young woman.." or "Years later, when Diana is now a young woman, she rescues American WWI pilot Captain..."?BEJT1 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in the movie, then yes. DonQuixote (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact, in the movie Trevor says the war has been going on for 4 years. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Short description

I know it says "short" description but up to 40 words are allowed, using only 3 words seems excessively short and less helpful than it could be. I want to get that out of the way first.

There seems to be a difference of opinion about the short description at the top of the article.[1] Joeyconnick wrote: "2017" is redundant (in article title); many more people than simply the director create a film, so follow beginning of lead: "American superhero film"

The standard convention for these short descriptions seemed to be of the form '(year) (film) by (director)', and the previous version I restored ("2017 film by Patty Jenkins") did seem to be following that standard convention, and I said as much in my edit summary.[2]

Template:Short_description does not go into great detail about how best to write a short description for a film article, but it does point to how to write a good short description which doesn't say anything specific about film articles but does say: "Short descriptions serve several purposes including a very brief indication of the field covered by the article; a short descriptive annotation; and a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly-titled subjects in different fields."

My emphasis added to disambiguation, because if the short description is too generic it doesn't serve any useful disambiguation purpose. One way to disambiguate a film is highlight a key person or people, either the director or the star (in rare cases even the top producer). Including a name would help serve the intended purpose of the short description. I agree "many more people than simply the director create a film" but it is not relevant, and naming Jenkins is not in any way disparaging anyone else how worked on the film (or any kind of statement about auteur theory) it is simply one of the easiest ways to describe the film and quickly and clearly disambiguate it.

The docs say "The inclusion of a date or date range is encouraged where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation, or enhance it as a descriptive annotation" but also "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title" so while other articles it would be normal to include the date in the short description in this case it is already in the article title (for now at least) so Joeyconnick does seem to be technically correct on that detail, and 2017 does not need to be included in the short description. (Personally I think it would be better to include it anyway for consistency.)

TL;DR: It would be consistent with the short description of other film articles to include "by Patty Jenkins" in the short description. -- 109.79.181.170 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the short description is that for certain search functions, like on the mobile app, the short desc will pop up under the title of possible matches and help the user to quickly find the work they are looking for. For the casual user, they aren't going to recognize this film by the director, but only by the year (as to distinguish it from "Wonder Woman 1984" (being a 2020 film). Hence there's no need to include the director in the short desc. --Masem (t) 03:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad I'm "technically" correct on something, as if 109.79.181.170 citing the short description explanation and their intrepretation of what constitutes "disambiguation" is valid but my reference to it is somehow suspect.

So... where is it stated that "(year) film by (director)" is the convention? Or that short descriptions have to be (or should be, even) in a consistent format for certain article types?

In terms of disambiguation, the article title clearly states the film name, the year, and that it is a film. So the only possible needed disambiguation is what kind of film it is, and following the lead gives us that. There's literally a bot that goes around BLPs and reads the first bit of the lead to auto create short descriptions for those article types that are missing them (e.g. "Canadian actor" or "Australian actress"), so this approach is more demonstrably acceptable than your statement that "(year) film by (director)" is somehow the standard. If there are cases where the short descriptions for films are "(year) film by (director)", that is clearly an indication of people giving unwarranted primacy to the director because you could describe this film as "2017 Gal Gadot film" or "2017 film starring Gal Gadot" and that would arguably be a more recognizable description to a more general, broader audience than listing Jenkins' name. Sticking to the type of film (and year if year is not already present in the article title as a disambiguator) avoids us having to do WP:OR on whether the director(s), the writer(s), the star(s), etc. provide better disambiguation for whichever particular audience we think needs it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't understand why deleting Jenkins from the short description was an improvement. I think the short description would be better if it included a name. I thought it was reasonable to revert to a version of the short description that included a name. If editors think it would be better to include a different name, then please do. The guidelines don't seem to say anything about "primacy" or unwarranted or otherwise being a problem, but if that is an issue then including more than one name would still seem better than including no name at all (... up to 40 words).

(When I said it was the convention, I was saying that it was a pattern that some editors seem to have been doing across many articles. Not being able to find what the guidelines were supposed to be (if any) it is seemed reasonable to follow what other articles were doing. If as Joeyconnick says bots have been generating some of the short descriptions then that explains why so many articles were following such a predicable pattern, and it is not necessarily any indication of an emerging consensus.)

An anonymous editor changed the description to "2017 superhero film produced by DC Films" [3]. Maybe DC should be highlighted in the short description? But again I thought it was most import to highlight a key person in the short description and it didn't seem like an improvement to include no name at all in the short description. So Jenkins, Gadot, or both even, I think it would be better if it included at least one important name. -- 109.79.164.49 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "American superhero film starring Gal Gadot" so that there would be a name included to help disambiguate this film from any other superhero film.

An anon editor changed it back to "2017 superhero film directed by Patty Jenkins" [4] and then another user removed the year from the description.[5] so it currently reads "Superhero film directed by Patty Jenkins". If you still think it needs to be changed please make sure to include Jenkis, Gadot or both. -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Wonder Woman (2017 film)#Accolades and Wonder Woman (2017 film)#Cultural impact be split into a separate page called List of accolades received by Wonder Woman (2017 film) and Cultural impact of Wonder Woman (2017 film). The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. 171.61.199.171 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Fraulein Doktor and Dr. Maru

The movie’s version of Dr. Maru has similarities with the fictionalized version of real-life spy Elsbeth Schragmüller in Fraulein Doktor (1969). In Fraulein Doktor, Dr. Schragmuller is a spy who steals a formula for a gas similar to mustard gas for the Germans in WWI. Later she goes undercover as a Spanish woman. In Wonder Woman (2017), Dr. Maru is a Spanish chemist for the German military in WWI who invents a gas similar to mustard gas. An Allied spy, Steve Trevor, steals the formula. I’m not sure where this fits in with this article but it may be of interest. Reference: this article and the Wikipedia article on Fraulein Doktor, although https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/75613/fraulein-doktor#synopsis provides info as well. Mkrobb (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states any of this, otherwise it's synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)