Talk:Black Sun

Sources about Black Sun, the innermost circle of the SS and their rituals?

Does anybody know sources about that?

--David Moerike 09:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game Engines

How about the Black Sun game engine developed by Mithis Entertainment

External Link Removal

BlackSun 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Jmlk17, I don't know who you think you are, but I'm a strong contributor to the Wikipedia community, and nowhere is it banned to place a single link an external site under the topic heading for which the site is named. Black Sun Journal is non-profit and non-commercial. That site has been maintained continuously since 2001, and certainly warrants listing under the Black Sun section. If you think it does not, then why don't you get rid of all other fully commercial links under that category? Chill out, please.[reply]

Hey buddy, I already got the message on my talk page, no need to copy/paste it here. :) Jmlk 1 7 07:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

black sun comic book series

so im searching google for prices for my comic books and decide to wiki the series black sun but it does not exist on teh webs anywho; i have a comic book series called "Black Sun" a 6 part comic book from shortly after 9/11(judging by the "we remember 9-11" label on the front of the first issuewith a "WS eye of the storm" logo on the covers, and a web address wildstorm.com on the barcode it is written/drawn by marc andreyko and trevor scott going by the names on the front sold for $2.95 USD and $4.95 CDN, barcode also says "direct sales" i was fortunate enough to acquire all six issues for under a loony apiece, courtesy of my friendly comic book store if anyone wants to contact me about creating an artical about the series i would gladly provide plot details, just reply to this post(right term for this?) im too lazy to make an wiki-account and make it myself, but would love to see the series on wikipedia and find out what the entire collection is worth to a collector peace - bluefoxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.109.4 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested in starting this, the redlink is Black Sun (comics). (Emperor (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Cleanup

I have just done some cleanup on the page, and removed the disambig-cleanup tag. (The person who added the tag did not explain specifically why it was added). I have removed some entries, reworded some, and removed a lot of explanation per MOS:DABENTRIES, specifically "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.". --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort sol

I think the link to Sort sol (bird flock) is too lower down the order. Many, like me, probably don't even know the term Sort sol and would search the wiki for Black Sun instead. I'm not very experienced in updating Wikipedia and thought this to be discussed and decided . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushpaksen (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse

I added solar eclipse to the "see also" section, because I think it is reasonably what many people are looking for when looking up the term "black sun", but User:Dennis Bratland almost immediately removed it. I think solar eclipse might even be the most widely-meant meaning of "black sun" to the general public, as compared to most of the entries on this list which are mostly relevant to specific subcultures (e.g. fans of a specific author or band). I wasn't even trying to put solar eclipse in the main disambig entries, but down under "see also". What do other people think? Should solar eclipse have a mention on this page? —Lowellian (reply) 00:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think? Do you know, or don't you? Go to Talk:Solar eclipse and show the sources you have to support that 'black sun' is a term for solar eclipse. Then you can add that to the article. Looking at WP:DABNOT, I don't see how this meets the guidelines for what to include on a dab page. It says "Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article" at WP:DABRELATED. So at a minimum, Solar eclipse needs to describe black sun. So if the editors over at Talk:Solar eclipse want to include it, I can hardly object. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABRELATED's "include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article" is only referring to the articles listed in the main disambig entries, not the entries in the "see also" section. That is why entries like "black star", "dark star", and "dark sun" are listed in this "see also" section. It is inconsistent to include those entries but not the solar eclipse entry. The argument you are making would result in almost every other entry that was already previously present in the "see also" section being removed, since there are no sources showing that "black sun" is a term for "black star", "dark star", or "dark sun", either. These terms are not exact duplicates of each other, but they are extremely similar, clearly related concepts and informally synonymous, which is what "see also" is for.

I will also add that a Google search for simultaneous use of "eclipse" and "black sun" [1] turns up hundreds of thousands of hits, showing how frequently the terms are used as informal synonyms.

The core purpose of a disambiguation page is to be useful in finding topics to which the title could refer. A layperson, not knowing the scientific term "solar eclipse" but aware of the concept of a solar eclipse, could reasonably go to this "black sun" page trying to find and learn about that subject, and that is why the term should be included in the "see also" section, instead of just leaving that layperson lost.

—Lowellian (reply) 10:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have any sources? And you're not going to try to add this to solar eclipse? Then I remain unconvinced. "See also" not a dumping ground for whatever. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as already been pointed out, you have no sources for "black star", "dark star", "dark sun", etc., and yet you are keeping them around. I agree that "see also" isn't a dumping ground for "whatever" -- but on disambiguation pages, it is place for closely-related subjects that could reasonably be referred to by or confused with the disambiguation topic while not being an exact lexical match, which is what entries like "black star", "dark star", "dark sun", and "solar eclipse" are. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping it around? Me? Do you mean I'm now the only one responsible for every word on this dab page? Or all of Wikipedia? That's implausible. Read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The fact that I've taken an interest in removing one thing doesn't mean I am suddenly the keeper of every other similar thing. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is infinite content that might need fixing. You'd paralyze us if we weren't allowed to fix one thing at a time.

But, since you brought it up, 'black' is dark, schwarze, or sort. 'Sun' is a star. Eclipse? That's quite a bit farther from black than schwarze or dark. But really, if you want to remove the links to Black Star (disambiguation), Dark Star (disambiguation), and Dark Sun (disambiguation), I myself don't have a problem with it. I don't know how others feel.

When an editor asks you to cite a source directly, and you allude to a google search, that implies that no reliable source exists. If they ask you a second time to cite a reliable source, and you change the subject with a classic OSE dodge, that really underscores the lack of reliable sources. Let's face it: no sources support the connection between black sun and solar eclipse. If you do find any, great! Until then, let it go.

How come you aren't over at Talk:Solar eclipse asking them? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources showing the widespread informal usage of "black sun" to refer to a solar eclipse: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I want to be clear: I am not asserting that black sun is in any way the scientific term for a solar eclipse. It is not a scientific term. But it is widely used informally by the public to refer to a solar eclipse, and as such, this disambiguation page should link to solar eclipse so that the scientific term can be found. —Lowellian (reply) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now you have what you need to mention black sun at solar eclipse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary since black sun is not a scientific term but an informal one, though if someone wants to work black sun into that article, perhaps in a cultural impact section, he or she is welcome to do so. Whether black sun is mentioned in the solar eclipse article doesn't change black sun being a useful navigational link from the see also section of this disambiguation page. —Lowellian (reply) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So you think the way consensus works is, you present your arguments, and then when you're satisfied with yourself, you declare yourself to be right, and proceed with what you were going to do in the first place? Why even seek consensus if you're going to just go back to edit warring? Why don't you go to Talk:Solar eclipse and resolve this? You have a way of settling this staring you in the face. Do it. The solution is right there in front of you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of edit warring is completely unfounded. Instead of reverting your initial reversion on August 22, I immediately went to the talk page and began discussing the matter without further editing the page! Unlike you, I have not made any immediate reverts. The last comment you posted was on August 24. I replied on August 25. Then I waited, and waited, and waited for a reply or objection to my last comment. Since you still hadn't replied or objected by August 30 (5 days later, almost a full week), I thought you were satisfied with the result of our discussion, and so I made the edit today. If you were still unsatisfied, you should have replied. I didn't "declare myself to be right"; I thought we made progress on the issue and that we had reached agreement since you were no longer objecting on the talk page. —Lowellian (reply) 00:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could go ask on your behalf if there is consensus to add this at Talk:Solar eclipse, but I don't think I'm the best person to speak for you. You yourself should go there and make the case, and present your sources. Surely you will find them more reasonable than me. What's not to like? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to like is that you are trying to force forum shopping, which is against Wikipedia policy (WP:FORUMSHOP). Solar eclipse is an uninvolved article; there is no edit dispute there. The only edit dispute is here on this Black Sun article. I've already made my case here on the talk page for the article under dispute, and there is no reason for me to make the same case over and over again on the talk pages of uninvolved articles. —Lowellian (reply) 11:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: I don't see valid reason for excluding solar eclipse from the see also section. The WP:DABNOT criteria does not apply to see also section which is explicitly intended for such items. Lowellian has provided ample evidence regarding colloquial usage. older ≠ wiser 10:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of political references

I do not believe an unbiased platform should reference anything to a political party or group, such as this "far right wing" reference, which basically relates conservatives to satanist and nazis. If you allow this, you must also include the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the SS, Nazi party and today's Freemasons. You would also have to allow a statement which relates todays Democrats or "left wing" to communist China & Russia. Is this really ok with you Wikipedia? Multicam333 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

And...

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]