Talk:Power ring (DC Comics)

message: The power ring used to automatically protect the wearer from lethal force, as long as it wasn't from a green derived source. Now I think the new generations of rings don't have that automatic protection (e.g. Superboy-Prime froze several GLs with his super breath). Is this canon now?
AlGorup 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far we've seen that, before Hal/Parallax destroyed the Corps, the rings would protect their wearer automatically. Kyle's, however, did not have this, nor did he add it after he restored the Central Battery and the Guardians; the reasons for this were never explained. It does appear that this protection isn't part of the new group of rings, although Hal's may still have it, since his ring is a duplicate of his earlier one. --Joe Sewell 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulnerability 

message: Blue Beetle says GL rings buzz near magic. Is this true? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember Infinite Crisis, Hal Jordan and John Stewart discussed the ring's reaction:  John's sparked and Hal's didn't.  They also mentioned it happened to Guy Gardner.
I originally thought that it only reacted to the Blue Beetle scarab in particular.  Interactions between the magic-based Alan Scott and GLC members didn't seem to indicate a magic reaction.  Anyway, the point is I don't know.  Exvicious 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't quite buy that, especially since the Reach tried to empower one of their scarabs to weild a Qwardian ring.--Marhawkman (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Beetle scarab 

message: In several encounters characters have been seen using the green energy without the use of a power ring. Probert (aka The Bad One) charged himself directly from a Power Battery (GL Corps Quarterly #8). Hal Jordan is other example, he still had access to the energy even after ditching all the rings at the end of Green Lantern #50. It appears that beings of great willpower can command the green energy even without a power ring.
(This is my first discussion/post, so be patient with me) Garciacarral 05:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Green energy without a Power Ring 

message: :Image:GLWeapons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GLWeapons.jpg

message: It's been referred to way back in Green Lantern #6. Black Hand explains it.
"But death is stronger. It is the pure power of the far end of the emotional spectrum. The emptiness of space. The Blackest Night." and then "Death has power... its the true color of the Universe. The most wonderful color. It's my color."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.125.78 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't include speculation. --William Graham talk 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Nonethless, it's a strong indicator. Still, we'll know by at least 2009, and the page will be updated accordingly by then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.205.253 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Lantern is most likely Death 

message: The default destination for the search query "Power Ring" does not send you to an article focused on or a disambiguation page, but a page "Minor Power Objects of Sonic the Heagehog" Page. I think that the search should be retargeted to a disambiguation page. Ultimatecalibur (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Ring Search Default Destination 

message: The capibilites and limitations sections need to be updated. Green Lantern 26 clearly shows that the Power ring does have upper limits to what it's capable of, and does have limitations. John's ring clearly tells him "willpower exeding ring capabilities". So Green Lantern 26 proves that the idea that the stonger willpower, the stronger the ring is completly wrong. Since GL 26 clearly shows that the amount of willpower the ring can take is limited. Second, the statment in the capabilities section that says that no hard limit of the rings capabilities has been shown is also wrong. GL 26 clearly shows that the ring has limits of it's capabilities.
I'd update the article myself, but i'm afraid i'l end up butchering it, and am unsure how best to incorporate the new information. Perhaps a more skilled editer can update it. 70.17.135.120 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capabilities and Limitations 

message: 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) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - it needs more out-of-universe material (like the thinking of creators behind the creation and development - I've started adding some) and more references. It could have the in-universe material trimmed down and the out-of-universe material expanded. See also this discussion. (Emperor (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: "They appear to be neutral in the war helping injured on both sides.[21]"
I followed the citation, which links to The Lantern's Artists, I - Ethan Van Sciver. I looked thoroughly in the thread, and nowhere did it say that the Indigo Lanterns were neutral and helped injured on both sides. Should the citation be removed from the Indigo Lantern area, or did I simply not see where Ethan said that the Indigos were neutral and helped all injured? Mack (Yackity Mack) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just you, it doesn't say that anywhere on the page. I removed that piece of text from the entry. Hooliganb (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering about that. I just figured there was a source I hadn't seen.--Marhawkman (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Indigo Lanterns: Neutral?

message: Is it worthwhile to add Rot Lop Fan's oath to the section on Oaths? All it says there is that he replaced 'sound for light' in his oath.
"In loudest din or hush profound, my ears catch evil's slightest sound. Let those who toll out evil's knell, beware my power: The F-Sharp Bell!"
Satyrquaze (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a really good idea, but there's a section of the Green Lantern article that lists some variations to their oath already, including Rot Lop Fan's version. Putting in a link to that information might be a better idea. Hooliganb (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rot Lop Fan's Oath?

message: In the Son of Ambush Bug issue 1, there was the apperance of another corp. This corp was the Amber Butane Corp.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golem866 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 9th Corp 

message: Anybody got a source for white?--Marhawkman (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  White? 

message: Recently I reverted changes another editor made to the article, and just wanted to start a discussion on the changes to try and get some feedback rather than having the state of the article change back and forth. This article has a number of clean up problems that it needs to have dealt with and sorted through. Some people have expressed interest in torching the article in its entirety. To help prevent that from happening (if it's worth preventing) the article should be sorted through, cut down, and written in more of a real world perpective that is discussing the content as fiction rather than real content (ie, it's significance to DC Comics, its creation, its reception, etc). I agree that it would help to remove information on the page not related to power rings, however, I don't feel as though it's necessary to include the lengthy description of black power rings here as its already shown on the article for the Black Lantern Corps. 
For one, it's redundant. Secondly, the content on the Black Lantern Corps page changes regularly and often. It would be easier to give a broad look at the rings here, then have a focused look at that Corps' powers on their own regularly growing page. Thirdly, each of the ring entries has a link to a main article for a reason. The entries give an overview of information on the ring, and if a reader would like to learn more about a Corps and its powers they can go to the separate article. This way, the information in the article doesn't become disproportionate between the multiple Corps (with the exception of the Green Lanterns, which makes sense because of their disproportionate significance).
Are there other thoughts? Agree/disagree?-Hooliganb (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The content belongs here, and not necessarily on the other pages. If they are as important as you say, then this page shouldn't exist. --Bold Clone (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, making that comment then reverting my changes is not helpful in attempting to find a resolution. Why do you feel as though it doesn't necessarily belong on the other pages? I don't see how the importance of the other pages means this one shouldn't exist, either. The point that I'm making is, that is an absurd amount of information to have both on the Black Lantern Corps page and on this page. All of the Corps pages (aside from Green) have always been treated as the main article for a description of their full powers list, and this had been treated as an overview of rings in general. If you feel as though that should change, that's a change that should be made across multiple articles (as it's redundant to have the information repeated). If that's the case, it should probably wait until Blackest Night is over, since that article is an enormous mess as well. Not waiting and encouraging people to repeatedly make erroneous edits to two articles that don't always correlate to Wikipedia policy is just spreading an absurd cleanup around rather than solving it. -Hooliganb (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Precise info on power rings belongs here. A summary belongs on other pages. --Bold Clone (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the ring entries 

message: There are 11 non-free images.  I recommend reducing the number of images.  As stands, an image of every power ring with accompanying image is both impractical (from a fair-use stand-point) and a slant toward recentism.  I would suggess cutting back to the Box image and the GL ring. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 2010 

message: I remember this from a JLA story around 1980. In order to disarm a yellow spaceship orbiting earth, the ring creates a giant prism, thus altering the ship's color. Anyone happens to remember this and has a reference? -- megA (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Showcase #100, "There Shall Come A Gathering" -- megA (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumventing yellow color by creating a prism. 

message: I noticed that the article lacked note of a few important points in the Starheart's origin. Specifically in reference to the "occultist's" creation of the lantern when he had actually shaped it into a lamp and is murdered by superstitious villagers. As well as the second point in which the lamp is reshaped into a train lantern by a mental patient. the lantern then returns his sanity and grants him a new life. I also added that Alan received his lantern in the train wreck. theres an omen that goes along with the arrival of the star heart but i need to dig up my alan scott archive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroederJG (talk • contribs) 04:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was said that the lantern would flame once to bring death, once to bring life, and once to bring power. This was part of the origin as presented in Green Lantern v3 #19 (Dec 91). --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starheart: Origins 

message: Excerpt from the Green Lantern article: "DC considered the wordplay distracting and foolish", excerpt from here: "Green Lantern's original alter ego was Alan Ladd, a play on the name Aladdin, until a conflict arose regarding the actor Alan Ladd."
So one article attributes the Ladd-to-Scott transition to a naming conflict with the real Alan Ladd, and the other calls it a real-world equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT.
Comments? - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the source regarding the Ladd connection I used was from the first DC Comics trading card collection, either the Green Lantern cards or the issue details that introduced the GA GL. I lean towards the latter. --User:Alucardbarnivous  —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency about Alan Ladd? 

message: The infobox classifies the power ring as a "Weapon".
This is a way too narrow classification IMO, as the ring serves many purposes: life support (force field), tool (solid-energy shaping), power source, means of transportation (phasing, flight, teleportation), highly advanced sensor, information processor, mobile comms device, etc. Calling it a weapon is not entirely wrong, but way too one-dimensional. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapon? 

message: Seems to be some removal and reverting of removal of large chunks of content from the article.  Those other items are items from the DC comics universe which are similar to power rings, although not actual power rings of the emotional spectrum.  Some aren't even rings at all.  I see nothing wrong with showing the similarities myself.  Only one person seems to want to remove it.  Dream Focus 03:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked the editor to comment here and explain, I don't see what the difference is in what he's removing and what he's leaving. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Diamond Jack is a DC Comics property whose ring makes his imagination tangible. Eclipso uses his jewels to do essentially whatever a Lantern can do. Heartstones tap into cosmic powers to grant abilities. Reach scarabs are a variation on power rings developed by the Reach to counter GLs. The Starband does everything a power ring can do but draw power instead from stars. I don't see why these entries are being targeted. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not seeing why those are removed.  I think they belong on the article, but personally I think that entire section needs to be shortened considerably, as it seems like what is "like a power ring" has more content on the article than the "power ring" content itself.  But that doesn't mean individual entries should be removed without proper explanation. - SudoGhost 08:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Now that you have taken your complaint to the talkpage, we can get somewhere. There are a ridiculous amount of "similar devices." You're treating every energy manipulation device as a "similar device." Quite simply, that's not good enough. What I did was remove several "similar devices" whose only "similarity" was controlling energy. My aim is that only tools that manipluate Green Lantern energy (willpower) or are based on the Green Lantern rings would remain. The point of the section is to list only the devices similar to the Green Lantern Power Ring--I am simply narrowing the critieria. --Bold Clone (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, your explanation is "not good enough".  It is already explained above how these are similar, and are beyond your definition and explanation of why they were removed.  Your aim is more narrow than the aim of the other editors on this article, and as such you need to establish a consensus for removing the material before doing so.  - SudoGhost 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It has not been "explained above how these are similar." If they are not similar. What supposed similarity do the Heart of Darkness and the Heartstone have with Power Rings? I am trying to clear up the page of artifacts that have a marginal "similarity" to GL rings. I want there to be stronger critieria for this wiki page--otherwise we just clutter the page with anything might be like a Green Lantern ring. Just because something controls energy does not mean it is similar to a Green Lantern ring, besides the vaguest sense. --Bold Clone (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: .  - SudoGhost 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Cosmic powers have what to do with GL rings? This page doesn't say that the Reach Scarabs are a variation on power rings. The Starheart section could use more clarification, if it can do what you claim. --Bold Clone (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean Starband, which I leave for Evil Star's page to explain in detail because I think the descriptions for similar devices should be brief. If you do mean the Starheart, I think again the description should be brief as the Alan Scott page will obviously go into more detail. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content 

message: Isn't the practice of having TWO lanterns per sector a recent development since Green Lantern Corps: Recharge?  I believe prior to that there was a single lantern per sector.  Minor nitpick, I know. 174.1.92.142 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, though wouldn't that be better suited for inclusion in the main Green Lantern article? --Joe Sewell (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: No. of Lanterns per sector

message: Original reading: "As of the end of 2012 he had tapped color's except violet (Love)."  New reading: "As of the end of 2012, he had tapped all the colors except violet (Love)."  ProfMontgomery (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed a bit of grammar