Talk:Star Brand

Deletion of Comparisons to Green Lantern

For the reasons see Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Comics#Help with Star Brand/Green lantern comparison.

As you can see there I was advised that it should go due to it violating Wikipedia policy on original research.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I though that since I created that section and more than 90% of what is written was written by me that my deleting it was no big deal. For all the reasons stated on the WikiProject Comics page, I do feal it has to go. (Stephen Day 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

• Let's preserve the section here and restore it if it can be supported. ike9898 21:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The bigest criticism of Star Brand was the similarity between the Star Brand and the Green Lantern Ring.

There are certain similaities. The biggest of these would be that both are said to be the most powerful object in the universe of their origin, and that both allow their user to wield vast amounts of energy.

There are many more differences than similarities though. The biggest is the form of each object. The ring is of course a ring, while the Star Brand is a tatoo that can be moved anywhere on the body. The ring bearers are usually depicted creating energy constructs and this is something never done with the Star Brand. The Star Brand can resurrect its wielder and this is something that has never been shown as an abilty of a Green Lantern Ring.

Green Lantern got his ring from an alien, while Connel only believed he did for a brief time. Also, individual silver age Green Lanterns were part of a greater organization (see: Green Lantern Corps) and answerable for all their individual actions. The Star Brand weilders definitely were not.

The differences between Hal Jordan (the best known Green Lantern) and Ken Connel are even more staggering. Jordan is a confident and heroic man while Connel's best known attributes would be selfishness and being very insecure and self-centered.

I was listening to a podcast (Wait, What? episode 231), and the hosts were talking about the similarities between Star Brand and Green Lantern. So this idea isn't unique to the Wikipedian who originally added the theory. But perhaps the similarities are more striking in the origin stories than in the series as a whole, as the Old Man being an alien was later retconned, and as Ken Connell's character developed he diverged more from the original portrayal of Hal Jordan. I don't know if Wikipedia's policy allows citing podcasts, though. --Jim Henry (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The comic book, the character(s) or the object itself?

...which of the three is the actual focus of the page? The comic box suggests it's about the New Universe title, but the rest of the article doesn't quite reflect that. When newuniversal sees print, assuming that it's successful, this is going to get even more convoluted... is there an easy way to sort it out? --Mrph 22:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The focus should be the the Star Brand itself. The character was important, but there have been many bearers of the Star Brand since Ken Connell. The title started things, but stories using the Star Brand continued well after it was cancelled. The object is the focal points around which the various topics of this article revolve. Stephen Day 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article problem?

I moved the following here from the article. I don't know anything about this subject, so someone else will have to deal with it:

This is incorrect. In the actual comic it was Jacob Burnsley who rescued Jim Hanrahan from the jet crash. In order to save Jim's life Jacob branded him with the Starbrand. This is also incorrectly stated in the bonus "history of the New Universe article" at the end of the the Exiles: Wolrd Tour Book 1 Volume 12.

ike9898 15:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have the complete Starbrand collection. Starbrand issue #19 page #17. Star Child had sent Jacob to get The Old Man. The Old Man resists and their battle destroys Jim's jet. Jim lands barely alive. Jacob uses the Star Brand's power to save Jim. Page 27, at the end of the comic, Jim is shown with the Star Brand on his hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phamti (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Snipped out

"Technohol 13 - A comprehensive look at the Star Brand and New Universe characters and powers for gaming purposes. I propose this Wiki bring over some material from here." - I snipped out the last sentence for obvious stylistic reasons, although I don't think the linked material is really very encyclopaedic in any case. --Grey Knight 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Quasar49 starbrand.jpeg

Image:Quasar49 starbrand.jpeg 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) 09:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Edit

So the re-imagined Kenneth Connell of the newuniverse has his own article now, so I propose that his section be removed but leave a link to his character. McBeardy (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited down, yes.

That section shouldn't be fully removed thought. The newuniversal Star Brand is a significant piece of the overall history of the Star Brand. Stephen Day (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The section can contain a brief summary of his actions, major differences, etc., with links leading to the new page. McBeardy (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, OK, if that's what you meant, I have no problem then. :) Stephen Day (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New Universe series infobox

I've now had to move the infobox back to where it is more than a few times now. Until now I've just let people know on their own talk pages. Its happened so often enough now that I guess I should state something here.

The infobox is where it is because of a problem that kept occuring when it was located at the top of the article. Some editors would see the infobox and just assume that the article was about that particular series without reding the rest of the article to discover that it covers more than just that. The opening kept getting edited to reflect this mistake. After having to deal with this way to many times, I moved the infobox into the section dealing with the original series.

Please don't move the infobox back to the top of the article. Its fine where it is and its location avoids the problem I just mentioned. Stephen Day (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Right... and a 'box designed to cover both the comic and the in-universe object adds to the confusion. Sorry, I don't buy that any more than burying infoboxes off screen when the article loads.

And just as a side note, the change was a half-step using a more appropriate 'box to the full content of the article - the New Universe series, which seems to be getting the lion's share of the article, the articfact/item, and (eventually), the character(s). The later whould be in a manner similar to the current character infobox added to the 'box and cover the NU charcater with a pointer to the nu one. Is it to be expected that the 'box will also be reverted if that 3-in-1 or a "series"/"franchise" (unlikely since the NU and nu seem to be handled as separate things and the "Star Brand" character for nu has its own article) box is used?

- J Greb (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit to quick on the trigger. I didn't notice that you had changed the infobox itself. This has happened often enough that I just assumed the box had simply been moved again. Your change will hopefully avoid the past problems from coming up again. Stephen Day (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Section on newuniversal "Before the series"

Is uncited. Also, probably does not belong in this article, but rather in the one about the newuniversal Star Brand. 96.60.70.254 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was a plot point from the earlier issues of the New Universe Star Brand in `86. Don't have the exact issue at hand though. It was repeated on a smaller scale which resulted in "The Pitt" replacing Pittsburgh. - J Greb (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the heading title to "Back story." Hopefully that will avoid this sort of confusion in the future. Stephen Day (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shooter basing Ken Connell on himself

(Shooter had modeled many aspects of the Connell character on himself.)

That tidbit should be (a) footnoted, and (b) discussed in the opening section about Shooter's original run on Star Brand rather than buried in the Legends section. The hosts of Wait, What? episode 231 discuss Shooter basing Connell on himself and several other characters on people he knew, but in the show notes for the episode I can't find a link to the article Graeme McMillen vaguely alluded to. --Jim Henry (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)