Talk:Power ring (DC Comics)

Vulnerability
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)
 * 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)

- The Rings do have that ability still, unless the bearer feels fear, then it can be broken. also i get the feeling that it can be overpowered at some point if the bearer is concentrating on doing other things with the ring such as fighting. Cpesacreta 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Green Lantern
To start this discussion, how about we move the Green Lantern power and abilities pertaining to the ring while leaving only some info on differences of Scott's, The Corps standard design's and Rayner's ring?--kchishol1970 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge it all. The Power Ring article does have some interesting information that may be hard to fit into this article, but the ring is uniquely tied to GL. Unless there's another character that uses a power ring, or the information starts to get out of hand (pun intended), I'd say merge it all into here, but very carefully. --Joe Sewell 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Spooky Power Ring@CovenantD
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Troopak31&action=edit&redlink=1 Troopak31 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't Merge There's plenty of information on Power rings to allow it its own page

Don't Merge There's plenty of information on Power rings to allow it its own pageCpesacreta 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge because of the history of the variants. Exvicious 08:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge for reason above. Dr Archeville 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge due to history and length -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge per above although I grant the item is nearly always associated with the Green Lantern comics. This is a grey area (e.g. there is no separate article for Utility Belt), but I think this particular item is by definition unique and notable. -Markeer 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a Batsuit article, FWIW, speaking of precedent. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Should there be a Utility Belt article? While Batman may be the first (and almost certainly the most well-known) user of one, others characters have made use of them.  I'm almost certain several examples of "Utility Belts in song/other media" could be found, too.
 * I'll post this where more folks can weigh in on it. Dr Archeville 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed with NO CONSENSUS TO MERGE CovenantD 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Beetle scarab
Blue Beetle says GL rings buzz near magic. Is this true? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

here is an odd thing to point out (unless it's just me) take all the symbols of each power ring color's and overlap them on top of each other it forms a beetle like shape; the willpower (GLC) symbol in the center as the "body", the Star Saphire (purple)in the center of the GLC's "finishing the body", the hate (red) one forming the "front and back legs" the fear (yellow) and hope (blue) ones "the wings", the compassion (indigo) forming the "mouth/nose and back part of the armored shell" the greed (orange) one forming "center legs and front armor shell", now it might just be me but if the Blackest Night story line is true Fear and Willpower must join together to stop it, what if all the rings must join together to stop it and the corps learn that the blue beetle is working for the black lanterns or that the blue beetle is a "kill switch" for the power rings? Chasemarc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.125.2 (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Use of Green energy without a Power Ring
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) Juan Manuel

Fair use rationale for Image:GLWeapons.jpg
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 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)

Black Lantern is most likely Death
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)
 * We can't include speculation. --William Graham talk 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Power Ring Search Default Destination
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)

Capabilities and Limitations
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)

The article suffers from its in-universe style, acting as if current continuity is prime reality. For example, it says that power rings used to have a vulnerability to yellow, as if they have a history in real time. Out-universe, there are fictional portrayals (e.g. All-Star B&R) where this vulnerability still exists, and most casual fans of Green Lantern, familiar with older comics or other media, consider this vulnerability a part of the character. The article even misrepresents the original rationalization for the weakness; in the older comics, it was repeatedly stated in editor's notes that a "necessary impurity" made the ring ineffective on yellow objects. This in-universe, current-continuity style reads as if written by someone only dimly aware that the world is more than twenty years old, or that the Green Lantern popular mythos is much bigger than any particular magazine continuity.JoeFink (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

White Power rings
I've noticed that DC comics has shown every color of the spectrum in the power rings, but what I don't understand is why DC hasn't done the White power rings. If they they can make Black, why not make White?

I would speculate that a White corps will be introduce. It is an inevitability, unless the writers want to defy logic. However, since the rings would be based on life, I am afraid that this story arc can be used to resurrect too many characters potentially.Timmyfitz161 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that making a ring for 'white power' may stir up some commotion in terms of whats politically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.144.59 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the central premises for Wikipedia is "no original research". Another is that the talk pages aren't forum space.
 * Bottom line is, speccing out a "White Lantern Corps" maybe well and good on a fan forum, it has no place here. If, and likely a bog if since it would be a major plot point, if there is an interview with Johns or DC editorial where the tidbit is floated, it may be worthwhile adding to the Blackest Night article. Until then, let it drop. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
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 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)


 * 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))

Black Lantern Corps members?
OK, it has been confirmed that Martian Manhunter, Superman of Earth 2, Connor Kent, and Ronnie Raymond (Firestorm) are going to be Black Lanterns. However if you look at the preview page going around, you will also notice Mirror Master (Scudder) and Captain Boomerang among the members. Who else can anyone identify based on the gloves? This is a half dare/trivia question. I also hear Thomas Wayne will be a member, thus proving once and for all that Dr. Hurt is not Thomas Wayne. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm...
 * Let's see...
 * The on-line reliable and verifiable references are:
 * Action figure solicits for the Earth-2 Superman and J'Onn.
 * J'Onn used in solicitation cover art for a GL issue.
 * Both Superman and Aquaman used in in-house ads.
 * A reliable off-line source (though at this point I'd like some confirmation of it) is:
 * An interview in ToyFare confirmed Raymond.
 * Beyond that... everything is guess work.
 * Superboy - the assumption of the meaning the "Omens and Prophecies" from Adventure Comics #0. Which is at odds with where Legion of 3 Worlds is at (Johns also writing that... so...)
 * A piece of cover art showing Black Hand hanging over Wayne's tombstone.
 * Fan supplied leaks of Blackest Night #0
 * Frankly
 * BN #0 should be avoided until after the stores open on the 2nd.
 * Guesses based on "The Black hand pictured by..." should not be ponied out.
 * Neither should interpretations of what has been published up to this point.
 * As for the "This is a half dare/trivia question." - Take that to a fan forum. It's got less than nil business here.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Indigo Lanterns: Neutral?
"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Rot Lop Fan's Oath?
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)
 * 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)

"Other power rings" vs "Power rings of the emotional spectrum"
In a recent revision by Exrebel, the title of the "Other power rings" section was changed to "Power rings of the emotional spectrum." I reverted the edit and just wanted to explain why, as well as open a discussion so that if people disagreed it could be restored or a consensus of some kind could be made.

The primary reason that I changed it was that green power rings (which the majority of the article is about) are also part of the emotional spectrum. So, more or less, the entire article preceding this section would also fall under that category. Black power rings, however, are not part of the emotional spectrum. Geoff Johns has stated that by being powered by death they represent a lack of emotion. That Blackest Night is a conflict between light and death, drawing a distinction between them and the other Corps. You can read about this early on in this interview that IGN conducted with Geoff Johns, so the recent title (which is also kind of long) didn't seem very accurate and definitely less concise than the previous one. -Hooliganb (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just some thoughts...
 * For the current view of the GLC and directly related rings that seems to work, even for the Black Lantern rings.
 * There are other "power rings" though that don't fit that model: The various Power Ring rings, pre-Johns incarnations of the rings, and Alan Scott's ring come to mind.
 * hrm... looking at that... Is anyone else concerned that the vast majority of this article is POVed on the last 5 or so years worth of comics?
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I favor an approach that treats the various corps in a section about them, and reserves "other power rings" for rings that aren't part of any corps. thus the spectrum rings get a section and that gets followed by the others. hmm... maybe have the green right before the list of other corps.--Marhawkman (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I like how the information on the different Corps is separated from other objects. What if the title was changed to "Other colors", "Color Variations", or something like that? I know that there are yellow rings that predate the Sinestro Corps, but (since that section is a little smaller anyway) it could stand to include a mention of Nero and the Yellow Lantern.
 * I didn't notice how much of the information was taken from more contemporary comics until just now. It doesn't really consern me, per se, just because there have been so many developments recently, but it does seem like there would be a greater depth to the history of power rings since it's been a plot element since Alan Scott. What kind of information could help fill in that gap, do you think? -Hooliganb (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of universe? Out of Universe the only corps that's existed until recently was the Green. You could argue that Star Sapphire counts, but she didn't use a power ring. Alan Scott and his non-GL ring is the only other in the main continuity. For a titl I think "Other Corps" would be best.Marhawkman (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Other Corps" makes perfect sense. I like that too. -Hooliganb (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Images
Removed Parallax due to the image being found on Parallax article page. Removed constructs, as while it was a nice image, it did not fully illustrate the 'capabilities' as intended. Reducing number of images to better reflect minimal use, for fair-use. Please continue to reduce images where possible. -Sharp962 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC).
 * I just restored the construct image. That image isn't meant to illustrate the full capabilities of green power rings. Like the caption below it says, it's meant to illustrate the variation in style between constructs made by different ring bearers (described in the second paragraph of the Capabilities section). The image is included because the topic of discussion is visual in nature, and textual descriptions (regardless of how accurate and well-written) cannot fully replace a graphic representation. -Hooliganb (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sharp962 (talk | contribs) (43,725 bytes) (Styles are not a reflection of capabilities, and for fair use, the image should reflect a specific point in the article, which the image does not and thus removed)" I understand your interest in deleting the image (seeing as the connection to the article seems vague to you), however I completely disagree and I think I need some help grasping your reasoning. How, exactly, is it not a reflection of capabilities? Would the rationale behind the image be more clear if the heading of that particular section was changed? Do you think that "Properties", "Characteristics", or "Abilities" would be more appropriate? If the ability to create constructs that reflect the wearer's personality in their appearance isn't a capability, is the ability to create uniforms based on the individuals preference and species a capability? The third paragraph of the same section talks about Green Lantern uniforms, and the image also illustrates this property of the rings. To me, those both strike me as falling underneath the "capability" heading. If they don't, the information should also be deleted, leaving the section with significantly reduced information (much of which won't fall under a verifiable citation).

I think another solution to this problem can be found other than deleting it, because (as you said) it's a nice image (which would make it a compelling one, no?) and capably depicts more aspects (at least seven points described in the section) of the ring than others likely would. The page on image use policy explains that, when the images collected relevantly depict the content of an article that cannot be described with words alone, a gallery of images could even be collected. I'm not suggesting that happen, however, I am pointing out that the number of images on this page doesn't even come close to approaching the size of a collapsing gallery. Moreover, if that one image changed the picture count on the page from intolerable to tolerable, it's worth pointing out that Powerrings.jpg is hardly as useful as the one we're talking about (especially when there's a link right there to Emotional spectrum). If you feel an image has to be deleted, I feel as though that one is more appropriate. -Hooliganb (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that while seeing the style is interesting and compelling as a comic-fan, I don't see where style is a salient issue when it comes to power rings as an editor. First, focusing on the style, it creates an in-universe tone to the article, where-as the individual character "style" is in reality individual artists depiction. Second, the argument of style as integral is failing to make a difference between drivers and cars.  From an editorial standpoint, differences in how individuals choose to operate or an object, fictional or not, is superfluous to the content description of the object. Finally, there is a proliferation of images, all with moderate to strong argument to remain in the article, but clearly a violation of minimal-use ... something has to give.  The 'Construct' image has the least compelling argument.  -Sharp962 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC).
 * The construct image (which is depicting something that needs to be viewed to fully understand) is less compelling an argument than the power battery image (which is depicting three batteries at too small a resolution to make out clearly in three colors that a reader will have at least heard of before being introduced to the topic of the article)? Moreover, you personally attributing the word "style" to the characters personal style doesn't mean it's giving the article an in-universe perspective. If it's unclear that the word "style" is being used in a way that's referring to the visual properties of how the artists render Green Lantern powers and uniforms, then I agree that it's a problem and I'd be happy to help reword the content in order to reflect that. In terms of how the operators choose to use the object, I don't see anything specifically stating that the shape constructs take is a conscious decision on the part of the user. I believe (and I can reread the issue, if you disagree) that it's an automatic aspect of the ring. Moreover, I don't believe I've read anything saying that a Lantern needs to willfully alter their costume so that it will accommodate to their species' anatomy. When someone becomes a Green Lantern, the uniform just fits them.


 * Regardless, the nature of the object is how their users choose to operate them. Power rings are capable of practically anything, exploring their capabilities is entirely based on the choices the characters are depicted as making. More to the point, since seven out of eight power rings are all fueled by the emotional spectrum and are only usable based on an individual's capacity for a specific emotion, I think the wearer, their choices, and behavior are extremely relevant to the content of the article. Even were it not, I don't think "car vs driver" is a justifiable cause for deletion. Yes, you can write an article about a Honda Civic, but without including information about the driver, you'd be omitting information about marketing, awards, racing, the oil crisis, safety and recalls. I don't think talking about property of the ring that is relevant to every wearer is superfluous at all. How an object is used is all an object is. -Hooliganb (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I believe the current dissenting argument is rooted exclusively in fictional aspects of the ring, which points to the in-universe-tone. But, it appears there is an editorial impasse between two lonesome editors.  I've already asked for further input on the Comics Proj, and will await further feedback until then.. -Sharp962 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC).


 * The whole article needs firebombing - it's full of trival in-universe details. When I get the time I'll turn the flamethrowers on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And why is this cruft here and in the individual articles - what's the point of having a main article if it's just going to repeat the same stuff? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even think we need this page. From an out-of-universe perspective, the topic is only discussed in relation to Green Lantern. I'd be up for a bold merge. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on the above comments, I think that article might not need to exist either. Arguments could be made that Batarangs and Lassos of Truth article exist, but that have a great distinction as far as commentary in the real world.  Not to nag but opinions on the image in question? -Sharp962 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Um.... what? Those are gizmos used by very few characters. This on the other hand is used by around a THOUSAND characters.  I do agree that it could use a bit of work, but getting rid of it in it's entirety? no.--Marhawkman (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The 9th Corp
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)

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

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

The article needs rewriting from scratch - masturbatory discourse on what the power rings can do is *not* what a wikipedia article should do. We look at the cultural impact of such fictional devices and what reliable third parties have written about them. What happens in the comics is trivial to us unless third party sources discuss them and put them in a cultural and social framework. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It needs taking back to a kind of publication history looking at where features first came in, drawing on sources like the Science of Superheroes and interviews with creators. Details like what specific types of rings do should be in a brief "powers and abilities" section on the relevant article (with suitable sourcing). The sheer amount of detail is a little scary and must border on trivia - I just don't see how this is relevant: "The alien Kilowog's ring, for reasons yet unrevealed is (according to Hal) 'the only one that makes a sound,' producing a loud sonic boom upon activation." (Emperor (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Rename
Having one letter's case be the difference between the item and the supervillains seems silly. Should this not be renamed to "Power Ring (DC Comics weapon)" or similar? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. The article is about a type of object - "powqer rings" - and is properly capitalized. It also has a proper hatnote so further dabbing makes little sense.
 * Now, looking at Power ring brings up a different possibility - simplifying the dabs to Power ring (comics) - 2 comics related articles, and this is the more likely search target - and Power Ring (character) - since there are no other characters using the name. - J Greb (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Images 2010
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).

Circumventing yellow color by creating a prism.
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)
 * EDIT: Showcase #100, "There Shall Come A Gathering" -- megA (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Starheart: Origins
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)
 * 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)

Inconsistency about Alan Ladd?
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)


 * 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).

Weapon?
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)

Removal of content
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.  D r e a m Focus  03:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * . - SudoGhost 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment I have to agree with the majority here in that there is no need to remove this content. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No. of Lanterns per sector
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)
 * 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)

Fixed a bit of grammar
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)

Requested move 8 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to Move Power Ring (DC Comics) → Power Ring (character) but leave Power ring (DC Comics) where it is. No such user (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

– This move was proposed in 2011 but never actually followed through with for some reason. The names of the pages are confusing since they both essentially share the same name. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Power ring (DC Comics) → Power Ring (fictional object)
 * Power Ring (DC Comics) → Power Ring (fictional character)


 * There are more power rings than just these - Please see Power ring.
 * And the hatnote on each page clarifies, the same as other such pages.
 * Rename not necessary. - jc37 02:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that the request also calls for the fictional object to now have ring capitalized though no reason was given. Assuming this wasn’t a typo can they nominator please provide their reasoning.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Power Ring" is a proper name for a fictional item, as contrasted with Magic ring, a general term for an object. If the title for the article was not a proper name, it would be going from a WP:INUNIVERSE perspective.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose 1, and move Power Ring (DC Comics) → Power Ring (character), per WP:NCCDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Move but to different targets. I think more disambiguation would probably be helpful here, but "fictional" is uselessly vague.  For the first article, I'd suggest any of Power ring (DC Comics object), keeping the current title (Power ring (DC Comics)), or some completely new title (Power rings in the DC Comics universe?!).  For the second article, just use Power Ring (character) as suggested by 162.  SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1 and support 2, more or less per the above. The concept of the "power ring" is more fundamental to the DC Comics universe than particular characters who are named this because they wield such a ring. BD2412  T 23:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)