Talk:Star Sapphire (DC Comics character)

First Appearance

I added some information regarind the character's first Golden and Silver age appearances. Jackbox1971 05:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job whomever added the article with the cool table. Takes the sting out of having my bit of text edited out. Jackbox1971 07:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about Star Sapphire and/or Carol Ferris' first appearance. Is the Golden Age Star Sapphire actually Carol Ferris or not? The entry doesn't say, but the image of the Silver Age Star Sapphire gives her first appearance as All-Flash #32. Seems like a clarification or correction is in order. -RB24.163.208.79 02:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

picture

there is something wrong with one of the pictures

• okay, which one and what? They look fine to me.--Marhawkman 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Deb an Earth-girl now?

I thought the recent Star Sapphire arc had Deborah Camille Darnell be one of Hal's little post-Carol flings. Did they retcon the alien origin? --Joe Sewell 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cferris.jpg

Image:Cferris.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Delap.jpg

Image:Delap.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JillianPearlmanStarSapphire.jpg

Image:JillianPearlmanStarSapphire.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 10:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Starsapphire-all-flash32.jpg

Image:Starsapphire-all-flash32.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (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 Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "corps"

Within the DC Universe, the Star Sapphires have not been referred to as the Star Sapphire Corps. Despite this, other unofficial online resources refer to the group erroneously as either the Star Sapphire Corps or the Violet Lanterns. In a previous edit (done prior to writing this post), I incorrectly referred to them as the Star Sapphire Corps in order to create a distinction between the group and the women called Star Sapphire before the group was formed. Krejasibergj333 reformatted the post so that this inaccurate name was removed (which it should have been), however this made some information confusing to read.

At DC Comics official blog (The Source), the Star Sapphires are included in a series of posts by Alex Segura called: Corps 101. Additionally, the Green Lantern Corps: Sins of the Star Sapphire trade paperback includes the following description: "On the planet Zamaron, a new corps forms, as the Star Sapphires tap into the violet light of love as their power source." (Bold was was added for emphasis.) Even though they're not called the Star Sapphire Corps, the group is being described as a corps. My point is, using corps as part of their name is incorrect; however referring to them as a corps in a way that is clearly not confusing it as part of the group's name (through wording or use of parenthesis) is not incorrect. Since official publications released by DC have used the word in a similar way, I'm suggesting the word corps not be deleted when creating a distinction between the individuals and the group as long as it isn't capitalized and included as part of their name.

Hooliganb (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Predator

I'm going out to get this issue later today, so I don't know how thorough of an explanation is provided on when the Zamarons became connected to Predator and how he's related to the Sapphires that existed before there was a Corps of them. Considering what kind of information exists about him, does he warrant having an entirely separate subsection outside of the Star Sapphires one that already exists? Was his previous connection to Carol confirmed or is that a quasi-speculative conclusion someone came to? Hooliganb (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but I'm leaving it until I see a specific reason to get rid of it. A section on the Star Sapphire equivalent of Ion is definately warranted, assuming we have good data to write one off of..--Marhawkman (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. What I was really asking though is if it should be a level two heading (like it is now) or a level one heading (like "Powers and abilities"). I'm asking because the article is split between the women who were the original Star Sapphire and the Star Sapphires as a Corps, and how Predator relates to all of the originals isn't really clear.Hooliganb (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it the way it is now.Marhawkman (talk)

Images

There are a total of 9 non-free images, and Manual of Style would point to approx. 3. I would suggest keeping the box image, golden age star, and the Star Saphires image. The ring could be religated to power ring page as with the Star Saphire. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

hrm... looking at the MoS the tag uses, I don't see a number suggested, or a rule of thumb for arriving at one. That being said, yes, there does seem to be an over abundance of images here.

Personally, I think nost of what's here can be dumped and replaced.

It seems the article is covering 3 things:

1. The Golden Age character (2 appearance IIRC, the second a modern attempt to appended the character to the later Sapphires);
2. The Silver/Bronze age characters - Ferris and Darnell; and
3. Johns' re-imaging the character into a variation of the GLC.

I'm tempted to also argue that we pick on infobox, likely the "team" and leave it at that. Though that does short change some aspects of the topic.

As for image... What should be kept:

• file:Starsapphire-all-flash32.jpg since it's the only image we've got of the original character from the original story.
• file:StarSapphireJLU.JPG - I'm partial to having the IOM images, especially when the costume design is significantly different from the comics.

What to replace:

• file:StarSapphires01.jpg - (sigh) Just took a real good look at it and where it was cropped from. It's the Who's Who style page from Blackest Night #0... something we really shouldn't be using based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use". Damn shame, since if it were a bit longer, it'd be a perfect infobox image. But it looks like we'll need to find something else like it. That image would also provide the "current costume style" look.
• file:Cferris.jpg - With something clearly showing the silver age costume style.

As for the rest... at the moment they really don't do anything for the article... though the stone and ring are a bit on the fence.

- J Greb (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In defense of file:StarSapphires01.jpg, it's not the entire page from Blackest Night (just a small portion), it doesn't have any of the typographic information in the original image, and isn't depicting four other named characters that originally appear in it. So, it's not saving anyone from needing to buy the comic book to get the image, and DC did technically already do that themselves by publishing all of the promotional images on their official blog before the release of the issue.

If it does need to be replaced, the only other group images of the Star Sapphires to speak of are the (horrible) shot of some nameless Stars holding hands in the prophecy full page spread in Green Lantern #25, a panel of Carol speaking the Sapphire oath for the first time with a group of nameless Stars in Green Lantern #38, and a panel from Blackest Night #1 where Carol, Fatality, and Miri Riam are shown with Sinestro Corps members. I have each of those issues, and would be able to upload a new file. I don't, however, have an image of Carol in her Silver Age costume.

Maybe it's a little off topic, but what if the article were split between the individual and the group? The Star Sapphire article would have five images (three without the Dela Pheron image and Justice League animated series image; two without the Star Sapphire gem image as well), and the Star Sapphires article would have four images (three without the violet power ring image). It would also eliminate the problem of needing to choose between info boxes. Hooliganb (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I tend to be conservative with the Who's Who" style images. The issue being "free" is a good argument for the image to be an exception, but I'm not sure it's good enough. A better one would be if DC includes it among the downloads available at it's "Blackest Night" sub-page. That would essentially be DC moving it to "promotional material only".

As for splitting the article... I'm not sold on that at all. Those types of splits are for when the article is to big (generally ~50k) and the tram/roster is a logical split.

- J Greb (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't actually referring to the issue being free and still available on their mini-site. What I was saying was that the images were released separately from the issue itself (before Blackest Night #0 was released online or in print) in a series of posts on the official DC Blog The Source called "Corps 101." The final posts with all of the promotional images is here. The Green Lantern Corps spread from the series is in the Gallery section on that site as well. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't see someone finding the image here and deciding not to buy an issue when it's less than 25% of the full image as published, the full image was already released online for free (from an official DC source), the issue the image was originally released in was free itself (and is still available for download, for free), and the who's who information (which would have been the aspect of the image that was marketable, were it not free) is available on the DC mini site as well, for free. If DC decided to sell the image by itself, they've already eliminated any need to purchase it on their own. Hooliganb (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand, the question is whether we are replicating what the image was intended to do in it's design, not necessarily the availablity of the image. I think the use of the image, even in portion, represent a vio, and should be removed. -Sharp962 (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, but my argument isn't about availability at all. My argument is: our use of [this] copyrighted material [does] not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Which is really what the meat of the issue is, as per the fair use policy regarding imagery that J Greb referenced in the second post of this section.

All the freeness I mentioned above aside, this portion of the image is omitting all of the information that gives the image its purpose. To be clear, you can see the image in its entirety here. Who's who documents are avoided because the reason people buy them is to find out who's who and collect the nice art. If Wikipedia published that information, people no longer have a reason to buy the product being sold in stores because they can obtain that information and view the art here for free. The point I'm making is, since the product is being given away by DC (who would be the people making money off it were it being sold, which it isn't), Wikipedia isn't causing a problem by publishing it since they're not interfering with any kind of sales transaction. More to the point, since this particular image neither contains the who's who information nor the entire artwork, it isn't a replacement for the actual published image. Hooliganb (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The sticking point is always going to be "It was originally made for..." The general read of the image guidelines and policies is if it was made specifically for a reference work like an encyclopedia, pass on it. About the only reference source artwork that I think of that won't get tossed is from cartoon style guides. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the fact that it was free identifies what it was originally made for: promotional material. If it was sold individually or in a collection (like Sinestro Corps Secret Files and Origins) then I wouldn't even try to justify it as being anything other than referential/encyclopedic. Because it was given away and released online before being published in print and then released in a free comic preluding the event, it's purposed was clearly to create interest in the upcoming storyline (even though part of the appeal of the image is the text). The Indigo Tribe version of the image says "Unknown" all over it, which is hardly informative. -Hooliganb (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of it, but I felt the need to put back the DCAU pic.--Marhawkman (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of it originally because, since it appears in the Other media section, its function seemed secondary to the other images in terms of Star Sapphire as a whole. I don't know how significant the number three is, but I would like to try to get the article to a point where the tag can be taken off and it strikes me as having less value to a reader than other images in my opinion. -Hooliganb (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I felt the need to keep it because the DCAU version is such a radical redesign. Look at the current Star Sapphires and the only similarities are the symbol (sort of) and the colors. Secondary or not it does need to be there for identifiability. 3 was chosen arbitrarily and isn't set in stone. I'm not sure but maybe we could trim the number by merging pics? the Gem and ring are an easy choice.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, my point was that since it's secondary it doesn't need to be there for identifiability. I don't think it doesn't belong in the article (and I'm not trying to push it out the door either), I just think that if there need to be more cuts that one would be next in line. Turning the gem and ring images into one image split vertically was something that I thought of actually. I couldn't find out whether or not it was okay to put that kind of thing on Wikipedia or not though. -Hooliganb (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it done before. at any rate I don't really see a need to arbitrarily get rid of pictures just to reduce it to 3.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I feel the need to echo the previous statements in defense of the "Corps" group pic. It was released specifically for promotional reasons. Thus it might be on the other side of the "fair use" fence. IE I think it's more likely a FREE use pic than a no use pic.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Unless anyone has a problem with that kind of graphic treatment, I'll put those images together and upload them to the site later. -Hooliganb (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I apologize for any false impressions given about the number 3, it was not my intention, I thought I had read that previously. Regarding the images, I do like the redux revsion of the page. I am still not convinced about the Star Sapphires image, but I think this points to a broad discussion needed about the use of such images. I went thru most of the other power-ring slingers, and I none of those pages have gems/starhearts/rings featured on character pages. Perhaps to minimize use we could remove these images as well with reference to the Power Ring page.-Sharp962 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

The reason why none of the other Corps pages have a Gem or Ring image is because the Star Sapphires are the only one to have had two objects provide them with their power source during their history. Since both have granted different powers and have effected the user differently, they were both put on the page to create a distinction. There's already a link to the power ring page, so if that image needs to be taken down I don't see a problem with it. There isn't another article where an image of the Star Sapphire gem could be found, however.-Hooliganb (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable compromise. -Sharp962 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Actually the other corps pages NEED to have ring pics. this one is only different in that they have the gem too.--Marhawkman (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New Article?

With the Star Sapphire Lantern Corps being more prominent now especially with Blackest Night story arc is it about time that this secion be moved in to its own article? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the same thing in the conversation immediately above this section. The article about splitting pages says that it's not quite big enough yet. I think that the amount of space the Star Sapphires section takes up and the difference in content between that section and the rest of the article will warrant it eventually, but it would probably be hasty to consider doing it before the article was 50k. I think it'll get there before too long. -Hooliganb (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

i think now would be a good time for a split. at least it says it's too long if you edit the article. If it were to move, Star Sapphires is open. which i will now create as a redirect to the group section until a split is needed.

actually now that i think about it, renaming *this* article might be a solution too, since previous incarnations or Star Sapphires, have their own seperate articles. but whatever Exrebel (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I favor Exrebel's idea. This article is a catchall for characters using the Star Sapphire name. It maakes sense to cover the Corps here.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think renaming the page might be better as well since the most predominate members of the Corps already have their own articles. The process would also involve changing the focus of the article to the entire corps rather than individual members. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewording it isn't a huge problem.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article is renamed/reworded, should the main pic be the group shot or the first appearance image? Exrebel (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

July 2010 revisit

Where do we now stand as far as notablity for a new article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Sapphire (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813141523/http://my.execpc.com/~icicle/GASTARSAPPHIRE.html to http://my.execpc.com/~icicle/GASTARSAPPHIRE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)