Talk:Blackest Night/Archive 1

Article title
Should this be Green Lantern: The Blackest Night or just The Blackest Night? I'm kind of leaning towards the latter, since it seems to be more commonly used in interviews with creators and such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Find a cite, don't guess. If there isn't a cite for any title, that should be noted at the AfD. - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I was trying to start a discussion, but if a fiat is preferred I found a citation and changed it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if that came off as abrupt, but the reason for the AfD is that the article is covering the scant information available about a story arc slated for "Summer 2009", more than a year away. If what source information there is for it is consistently calling it "The Blackest Night" or "Blackest Night", then that's what the article should be. If they vary between that and "Green Lantern:..." and DC hasn't released an final or working title, it's "Untitled 2009 Green Lantern project" with the variations redirecting. In that case, picking one is us guessing, presenting information not fully supported by the cites. - J Greb (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Geoff Johns and the others working on the project (Ethan van Sciver and Ivan Reis) have referred to it specifically as "The Blackest Night". Not to mention that there's an image in the infobox that says "The Blackest Night" in big letters. I think we've adequately cited the name. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * And doing a double check:
 * In the Johns interviews ( "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" and IGN) it bounces between The Blackest Night and Blackest Night.
 * In the Wondercon panel roll-up, the sole cite (see following) is as Green Lantern: The Blackest Night.

Elaborating on DC Universe #0, DiDio said that the one-shot issue is more than just a bridge between Countdown to… and Final Crisis proper, but also lays the groundwork for Green Lantern: Blackest Night, the upcoming Wonder Woman story, and more. To do this, the various artists were brought on.
 * A hedge would be that DiDio's statement, by venue, is the full working title. But it's not definitive. (The argument going which knows the title better the Editor or the Writer.)
 * (added in response)
 * Just keep in mind:
 * "Green Lantern: Blackest Night" is a mouthful to constantly repeat in an interview and in conversation. Johns, van Sciver, and Reis may not be using the full title, but the portion that's easiest to use.
 * Titles on teaser or promotional copy aren't set in stone.
 * The banner on the page reads "Green Lantern THE BLACKEST NIGHT" (only the GL section has an implied caps/lower case typography), not just simply "The Blackest Night".
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the DiDio assessment for two reasons: 1) since it was an impromptu answer to a question and like you said people don't typically say full legal names for everything in common parlance and 2) the quote also has him saying "Countdown to..." and that's sure not the title for that series.
 * But you're right about the banner in GL #25. We should probably go with "Green Lantern: The Blackest Night" until we see solicits or press releases. I'll revert my move.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Fuel
I don't really have the time, but if someone could comb this Newsarama interview with Geoff Johns for article facts, that'd be awesome. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw it, was planning to go over it tomorrow. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's some good stuff in this article with Ethan Van Sciver, as well.75.4.128.39 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody? --CmdrClow (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allusions
From the paragraph about the insignia down through the end of the section, all of these need secondary sources that they are hints, clues, and/or foreshadowing. If all that can be cited is the primary source and "I think..." or "It's apparent..." it's OR and needs to be culled. - J Greb (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors
I'm new to Wikipedia still so I don't want to start an edit war, but I just don't find the links to the colors relevant. I find a person is more likely going to click on one of the links hoping to learn more about that color from the DC universe perspective than wanting to learn something about the color itself. Still I would like to hear more people's opinion on this. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mostly it's the fact that the article exists with in a general use encyclopedia.
 * Yes, there are going to be places to link to comic book and Green Lantern specific articles, but there are also places where wider contexts have a place.

In the article, as it is currently constructed, linking to the closely related articles makes sense for:
 * Green Lantern — The infobox and the lead, where the full term is used. (Green Lantern Corps can be handled similarly.)
 * Sinestro Corps — The infobox and the first instance of the term in the text. The second case needs to be added (1st paragraph under "Background").
 * Star Sapphire (comics) — Where the group is actually named. And that is in the text following "Violet".
 * Power ring (weapon) — Where the article first mentions "power ring". There is actually a good place for this...
 * "...the two existing Corps would be joined by five new ones, each driven by a specific emotion and empowered by a specific colour of the spectrum, leading to an all-out war that would end up destroying the universe."
 * With the slight change...
 * "...the two existing Corps would be joined by five new ones, each driven by a specific emotion and using power rings empowered by a specific colour of the spectrum, leading to an all-out war that would end up destroying the universe."
 * There is also that the linking the colors to the comics articles creates a non sequitur in most cases. The GLC, SC and Sapphires, at an extreme stretch, relate to the colors green, yellow, and violet. The power ring article though doesn't naturally flow from the other five colors.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why those three would be a stretch considering that is the color they use to power there rings. As for the other ones, the Power Ring article also talk about the different colors and there effects, I was just unable to figure out what code to put it so it went to that specific section.

I understand that as an encyclopedia you don't have to just link to similar articles in the article in question. If you see my other contributions you will see I understand this principle. The fact remains though is that in this particular article I just don't think that those links themselves are useful and would serve better to direct people to the in universe description of them.

Still like I said before I don't wish to get involved in an edit war. So I will concede to your judgment and move on. If you wish to discuss this further you can leave a message on my talk page. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional crossover
How is this a "fictional crossover"? TunaSushi (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Check list part one

 * And this is from where? Hopefully not from a book that has yet to be published... - J Greb (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And since the IP has now indicated that it's from a book yet to be released, the information can just go.
 * And fair warning - the info comes back before May 2nd, it's likely that the page will be semi-protected.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete the talk information? DC has started shipping the book to retailers. That's released enough and it's reliably cited. That said, even if you disagree, I would have thought that an administrator would act in better faith instead of vandalizing other users' talk postings.

96.231.16.93 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "The publisher is shipping it" doesn't cut it. And good faith doesn't shield unreleased, and unverifiable information from being removed, both from the article and here.
 * At this point its pretty clear that you are either an employee with DC, Diamond, or a comic shop. If that is the case, check with you boss if you have the right to leak information out about something that hasn't hit the shelves yet.
 * Also, since there is no deadline to adding information to an article here, the information can wait until the release date of the freebie issue. The point in time when the source becomes verifiable by all.
 * For now, keep in mind this isn't a news site, or a rumor site. Clear enough?
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm it isn't a suitable source but I'd imagine DC or one of the big comics news sites will post something soon, if they haven't already. If not then we can wait a day until someone does. I'll keep an eye on the usual suspects and see what pops up. (Emperor (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC))


 * On the DC Comics Blog it gives a preview of Tales of The Corps and mentions that there is a 3 part mini series called that that ties into Blackest Night. Should we put that on the tie-ins or?--Davea3K (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the blog, the two "house ads" it links to were included in a new sire article, hence the note getting put into that "Black Lantern members" section.
 * Beyond that... if the art and the mention of the Blackest Night: Tales of the Corps has percolated onto a news site (more on that in a moment), adding the info to the "Background" section would be a go. Just basing it on a blog, even one set up by DC, is a bit iffy.
 * And to be honest, I'm not a fan of "Tie-in/Checklist/Read order" sections with in the article text. Especially when the information can be explained more clearly in text as part of a publication history.
 * Oh... and the "more in a moment..." Newsaram (news site) has an article up which has the following that should be incorporated to the "Background"
 * The 8 or 9 issue limited series. It isn't cleat if the FCB #0 is part ofd that or not, though it looks like there is a 2 month gap between #0 (May ship/on shelf date) and #1 (July ship/on shelf date).
 * The story will incorporate GL and GLC issues during that time.
 * Blackest Night: Tales of the Corps announced as a 3 issue mini but without a ship or cover date.
 * 3 3 issue minis subtitled "Batman", "Superman", and "Titans" starting in August and focusing on the rest of the DCU's response to the Black Lanterns.
 * At least 2 more minis, one subtitles "Wonder Woman" starting in November.
 * - J Greb (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The November 3
Before the missing November side titles are added back in again...

Newsaram's article was sketchy on the November titles, just that there will be a second wave and only naming the Wonder Woman one.

The article at Speed Force... It's section on November is written as second-hand (at best) information. The qualifier "Apparently" is all sorts of bad for reliability here.

Is there any other reliable, verifiable source for:
 * 1) The count of 3 title in the November wave; and
 * 2) The titles of the minis other than the Wonder Woman one?

And no, message board posts are not considered reliable.

- J Greb (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cover vs cover art
''''


 * 1) 1 is the real first issue. #0 was just a free promo. Plus, #1 better represents the series and what it's about, with the skull and all the black power rings. #0 just shows Hal and the different corps.

I don't plan on continually updating the infobox by adding the cover #2 when #2 comes out, and so on. --DrBat (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 

By the numbers, and I'm sorry if this seems blunt...

Is there going to be a better cover to use? Most likely, though it may not arrive until the hardcover, if then. - J Greb (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Blackest Night #0 is the first published part of the story arc that is not a prelude story arc.
 * 2) Articles on comic book series or story arcs (this is the later) are better served with a cover of the publication as published in the 'box where available.
 * 3) The solicit image falls under the "WTF?" end of "significantly enhance a reader's understanding" point under WP:NFCC. The solicit image needs a good dose of explanation to even become relevant to those familiar with Green Lanterns, the DCU, and/or comics, even more so for a general reader.
 * 4) Right now there is next to nil to show that DC isn't considering #0 to not be part of the series. For what it's worth, solid points that is a separate "promo only" would include:
 * 5) *The story portion being reprinted in one of the "official" issues;
 * 6) *The story portion being shown as totally irrelevant to the arc;
 * 7) *The story portion not being included in the collected edition; and/or
 * 8) *The central portion of the UPC changes with issue #1 ("61941" is proprietary to DC, "00011" generally relates to the issue number - 1st 3 digits - and the printing, "28178" having apparently been assigned to "Blackest Night").


 * Blackest Night #0 was essentially a half-issue, like (for one example) Dark Victory #0. It contained new material, but it was shorter than a regular issue and nothing of major importance happened. It's basically just a set-up/recap.
 * How is #0 more representative of the storyline than #1? It's basically a pic of GL with various strips of color behind him. --DrBat (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (sigh)
 * Now you've shoehorned in the image in a way that is totally bucking policy - It is now an extraneous image that adds zip to the section its located in. And it appears you have done this only to circumvent the image from being listed as orphaned.
 * You ask how #0 is more representative, which is the bass ackwards way since the bold edit is to replace that cover with the solicit image, it needs to be justified. But... #0 provides a clear identification of the title, focal character, and method of publication. These are things that the cover as published provides without explanation. In all honesty, what does the solicit image convey to a general read without an attached explanation. Remember, this is not a topic specific encyclopedia, readers with little or no knowledge of the topic are expected to be able to use the article. Also, WP:NFCC does have the corollary: If the image is not the topic and it relies on the text to explain it, the image is not significant to the article. It is very legitimate to say that at that point the image is detrimental to the article.
 * - J Greb (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing use the cover for #2 when the final version is released, then? It shows the focal character, and most people unfamiliar with the subject should still be able to understand it (he's being attacked by zombie superheroes). --DrBat (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the rough there? Yes... though I'd prefer the cover as published. The difference being waiting a couple of months instead of a few weeks and just having to do the change once. - J Greb (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Publication Dates
Why are we using the dates for the covers instead of the actual months when the issues will be out? Issue number 1 is out in July, as are the first lot of tie-ins, but in the tie-ins section they are dated September? I edited them before and they were changed back, couldn't see why but I read the edit history and saw that we were going by the cover dates. So why is that? Davea3K (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply? Citing comics has traditionally been done by cover date, especially in short forms.
 * And to be honest, I'd rather we not include checklists of yet-to-be-published-and-released comics in these articles. The companies have a track record of delay and change that makes the crystal balling a bit to shaky. Since we aren't a news-site, the "Tie-in" section could really wait until after the story wraps to be added.
 * Right now most of that section is in the "Background" (likely should be renamed "Publication history" at this point). These two paragraphs:


 * The second does rely on shipping/shelf dates, but it's a case of noting DC's intended actions, not referencing the books themselves.
 * I'm thinking a few changes though may be needed to those two...


 * - J Greb (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Teasers
I nominate that as the teasers are released, either on the internet or in that week's published in-house advertisements, we not just post the information about the teasers, but dedicate a small (sub) section that differentiates itself from the "Publication Dates" section. The advertisements really are an entirely different beast than the actual publications of issues and tie-ins planned, after all (e.g. the Aquaman in-house ad versus the release of the issue Blackest Night #0). It will be easier to find the information, navigate the article, and it would streamline the "Publication Dates" section by separating out that specific information, allowing the rest of the section to be much more straightforward. I appreciate your consideration and input.--74.235.10.150 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm to the point of "Enough!".
 * Most of the team affiliation, character identification, character naming, etc, in other articles waits for the published story to hit the shelves, not the promos or leaked tidbits. That premise should be applied here as well. And I'm starting to think it should have been applied when the toys were used to justify the E2 Superman and J'Onn, references or not.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And in this vein... since it's very, very clear that the speculative roster is going to keep getting added, the page has been semi-protected until mid July. - J Greb (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Lantern Corps members?
I believe we should make a Black Lantern Corps member list. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyfitz161 (talk • contribs) 23:11, June 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * After the issues showing a character as being resurrected as a BLC zombie in the story have actually gone on sale, maybe.
 * Right now, based on cover art, solicits, and guesses? No.
 * Even after the story starts to unfold, it may may be a mass of trivia that isn't needed in this article, the power ring article, or to be mentioned in the various character articles.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Are they really lifeless, emotionless, and mindless zombies?4DJONG (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blackest Night #1 confirms Ralph and Sue Dibny, as well as Martian Manhunter, Jack T. Chance, Ke'Haan, Katma Tui, Bzzd as Black Lanterns. I'd be for including them, but shouldn't there be some sort of spoiler warning on this page? Murphyr (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly does it "confirm it" (late getting books here). And spoiler warnings have be gone for a while - If it's in print and been officially released, it's fair game. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They (as well as Kreon and Ch'p) appear as physical Black Lanterns, while a few of the others are mentioned, but not shown (I'll have to check to sort out which is which when I get home). Hawkman and Hawkgirl are shown being told to "rise" by the Black Lantern rings, but we don't actually see them in Black Lantern form, so it depends a bit on where you want to draw the line about who counts.  Fair enough about the spoilers; I've not actually edited comic book articles before, and so don't know the protocol. Murphyr (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally got the issue, and updated the the list slightly - those that were named and either in a BL uniform or shown "reviving"; those who were just named by the rings; and those that are only visually IDed in BL uniforms... pages 36 and 37. That maybe able to be filled out a bit cross refing with the "Fallen Lanterns" spread from Green Lantern/Sinestro Corps: Secret Files #1. - J Greb (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are footnotes referencing the publication and page number each character is feature on, is it necessary to have the issue as a subhead? Especially since the list is likely to expand and characters' placement on the list might change. Hooliganb (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The note on the issue header for the roster can go, but the intent is a kin to "In this issue these characters are confirmed members, these are implied, and these are shown but not named." (also the reasoning for the columns) Ideally, one the character is confirmed, it won't show up in lists from later chapters. - J Greb (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're saying. Maybe other people disagree, but it does look jumbled in the first three lines (preceding the column split) because of the weird line breaking that the column format creates. Even without names repeating, it seems like a problem that would just get worse and additional issues are added. Hooliganb (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow up on the 2 page spread... for the life of me, I cannot see: Can someone point out where they are?
 * Alisand'r
 * Archon Z'gmora
 * B'rr
 * Bivvix
 * Tomar-Re

- J Greb (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it?
Could someone please give a simple explanation of what this is supposed to be about. The most I can ascertain from the article is that it's a Green Lantern story, and who's working on it. There's not even the least description of what makes it distinctive from any of the other Green Lantern stories. As a supposedly encyclopedic article I find it fundamentally useless. MultipleTom (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The the first paragraph in the article (beyond the introductory paragraph before the Contents box) reads
 * I think that pretty much sums everything up (aside from the Black Lanterns, which are explained in the next paragraph). The first paragraph is a pretty standard place to find that kind of information in encyclopedias. Hooliganb (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that summarises the end of a previous storyline (and articles aren't supposed to be written in an "in-universe" format anyway). I am still clueless as to what this specific storyline is supposed to be about, why it's supposedly such a big deal, why it merits a Wikipedia article at all. There is NOTHING that even attempts to explain it in the introductory section. MultipleTom (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Give it a look now, MTom; now you know what the story is about. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Thank you! MultipleTom (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed bits
I've purged much of the names listed in the section "Members of the Black Lantern Corps". Something like this came up during 52 and Final Crisis, and we should follow the same pattern here. What we (as comic book fans) observe is not citable. Most readers don't know who is who, and adding our personal observations and identifications - while ingenious - is synthesis and original research. When (and if) these "Implied" or "Visual appearance only" names are explicitly offered within the comic or - even better - via someone at DC itself, we can include it. Until then, this is an encyclopedia, not a detective show. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Death Lanterns"
i'm removing the van sciver calling them "death lanterns" quote because if you [google it http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22death+lanterns%22+%22van+sciver%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8], you get a link to this page. And a bunch of forums that are quoting this page. Exrebel (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag on the Interviews section
On the interviews subsection under "External Links," there's a tag saying: "This section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate." I'm confused as to how the citations could be made more precise. Should specific portions of the video be listed? The second is an interview entirely focused on the event.

Is this tag necessary? (Edit- forgot to sign this before)-Hooliganb (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * hrm...
 * Actually... the "Notes" is a reference section, not notes; what's listened in "References" straddles the line between references and external links, those and the interviews are closer to "Resources"; and the EL seems OK. - J Greb (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so confused now. I realize that "Notes" is a list of references, I was really just asking about the External Links section. I'll do something about the others while I'm at it, though. -Hooliganb (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackest Night is the story about how a counterpart to the Green Lantern's Central Power Battery is found and accidentally activated.
Accidentally? Yeah, that voice transforming the Anti-Monitor into the Black Lantern Power Battery at the end of the Sinestro Corps War sure seemed accidental. Is there any citation anywhere to support this found and accidentally activated stuff? 114.75.179.21 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what that means is, it was coincidental that the Anti-Monitor landed on Ryut when Superboy Prime threw him into space. The Black Central Power Battery activating was definitely deliberate, but it was by chance that something showed up that could be used as a power source for it. I do agree, though, the wording isn't very clear. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)