Talk:Death's Head

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Death's Head was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Transformers, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Transformers. Please participate by editing the article Death's Head, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death's Head article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Removal of GA status

nothing about cultural context, legacy, influences, writers, just the canonical storyline of the character.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 February 2006

The criteria for GA - as opposed to FA - are simply

  • be well written
  • be factually accurate
  • use a neutral point of view
  • be stable
  • be referenced, and
  • wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it.
  • Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

Someone obviously feels that this article meets these criteria. For you to dismiss it out of hand, for reasons that are not required for GA status, and are in fact addressed by the article anyway, and not attempt to make modifications yourself either, is not on.

Cultural context is 1980s popular children's/teen comics derived from cartoons designed to sell plastic toys. Legacy is the new DH3 series. Influences are the Transformers series. Writers are Simon Furman, and Dan Abnett.

This is all quite clear in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyhousetim (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 February 2006

crap article 82.13.27.99 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avengers

Death's Head (Minion) also appeared in Avengers Forever.- Coyote 37 12:38, 29 June 2005

[edit] Death's Head I

This page NEEDS a picture of Death's Head I, preferably drawn by Geoff Senior. I feel Deaths Head II is not much more than a footnote and shouldn't be the only picture shown. Anyone have something suitable to add? - Coyote 37 12:38, 29 June 2005

[edit] Re:Death's Head I

I've added a pic of Death's Head and also the preview cover to Amazing Fantasy #16 - Liger 08:40, 23 September 2005

Nice one, the page looks much better now. Furman writing new Death's Head material for Marvel AND new Furman penned Transformers comics from IDW coming up. It's a UK Transfans dream! Woo! (excited) Coyote-37 09:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Superherobox

Added box, but might a Transformers box be more appropriate? The original DH may be more notable for his transformers appearances, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1Puck1T (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 April 2006

[edit] Doctor Who Companion

Very confused as to why this character is listed as a Doctor Who companion. I've read the whole article, and it sounds as though he appeared in exactly one issue. Hardly companion status.Konczewski 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Minimum of three run ins by my count, one as an enemy, two as a ally. I could be forgetting some others as well.D1Puck1T 08:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death's Head a Transfomers?

He Not a Transformer!-Takua X 4:25 a.m.

No, but he did appear in various Transformers comics, as noted in the article. --Mrph 10:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disowning DHII

Is there any record of Furman disowning DHII? I know from talking to him that he's not fond of the revamp, but I can't find any written record of it. Kelvingreen 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status (revisited)

As there seem to be concerns about why this article hasn't gained GA status (as per comments on Talk page & recent RV of article to a 2005 version), is it worth nominating it again or putting it up for WP:CMC peer review? Either option would lead to a lot of constructive feedback - it might not get GA status immmediately, but it would get a lot of pointers which could then be used to improve the article. --Mrph 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth nominating it for GA status again yet, not least because looking at recent revisions there seems to be some decent information that has been discarded and should be put back in again. Putting it up for WP:CMC peer review might be a good idea, though, especially if there's any dispute over what should or shouldn't in in the article. H. Carver 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The GA process sucks because of retards like Zzzzz who veto articles on topics he considers of no interest to himself rather than because they do or don't meet the GA criteria. FYI the content removed was unnecessary and/or plagiarised. Keeps this simple people. Don't change what isn't broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyhousetim (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 February 2007

Having looked through some of the content you removed, I don't feel that it was all unnecessary. For example, you removed the Publication History section, which is important because it gives real-world background and context on Death's Head, and you removed an interesting fact about how Furman was unaware of the military and Nazi connotations of "Death's Head". As for material you claim is plagiarised, you need to tell us where it was plagiarised from (for example, if it was copied from another website, then a link to the website would do). Also, rather than delete it completely, it is better to rewrite it so that we're still making use of it but in an acceptable form.H. Carver 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyhousetim (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 February 2007

[edit] Plagiarism?

Following up on previous discussion here (and on User talk:Mrph) the concern seems to be the claim that some sections of the article were plagiarised, with "entire paragraphs copied from the new DH trades". I don't believe this to be the case. I think I added most of the information from the recent trade paperback, with info about DH's creation drawn from Furman's introduction (as seen in the 'publication history' section of this old revision the Feb 1 2007 revision. I'd like to think that the quotes weren't excessive and were properly cited - and that the other information was a brief (and appropriate) summary of the character's creation. If not, my apologies - please respond and let me know which aspects aren't acceptable. Thanks! --Mrph 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit: hadn't realised link wasn't working, added more info. --Mrph 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please outline the content dispute

I was asked to take a look at the problems with the editing of this article, but I'm not sure I understand the dispute. Please explain to me what is happening. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the main dispute is/was whether or not the material in the publication history serves any purpose - and whether the article now is an improvement on the Dec 2005 version, or whether the subsequent changes had taken it in the wrong direction. I prefer the current version - but a lot of the edits are mine, so I'm not impartial. Monkeyhousetim has advised that he feels some of the changes are plagiarism (something I've tried to address in the comment above) and that they moved the article further away from GA status. As a result, he reverted it back to an older version. We've subsequently had a number of edits from 81.168.1.18 removing information they see as irrelevant or as plagiarism. Most of the relevant discussion is on this talk page or in edit summaries, but there are also some comments about this on User talk:H. Carver and User talk:Mrph. The dispute itself has gone quiet in the last couple of days - but there's been no agreement/consensus, so I'm really not sure if it's actually resolved. Thanks for looking into this. --Mrph 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Noon Tex

Is there actually any evidence of 'High Noon Tex' in any publication at all before Transformers #113 was published in May 1987? The earliest alleged evidence of 'High Noon Tex' seems to be not until well over a year later, around September of 1988. It seems like damage control, after Death's Head's popularity in his Transformers appearances, that 'High Noon Tex' was produced as an argument that he was a Marvel character rather than a Hasbro one. This seems further evident by the fact that 'High Noon Tex' was drawn not by Geoff Senior, who created Death's Head and drew his first appearances in Transformers comics, but by Bryan Hitch, who drew the Death's Head series as of the December of 1988. And my eyesight might be flawed, but the signature in the corner of 'Tex' seems to say "Hitch '89". If 'High Noon Tex' was in fact done in, say, April of 1987 then it would also be Hitch's first published comics work, predating his supposedly 'actual' first comics work by a couple of months, back when he was seventeen years old. It seems to me that 'High Noon Tex' is a Marvel Comics smokescreen attempt to anachronistically secure copyright for a character that they wouldn't otherwise have in order to begin the Death's Head solo comic. Unless anyone can point to any evidence to the contrary - like a publication of any kind with 'High Noon Tex' in it that predates May 1987. - Jordan 58.106.151.234 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Furman states pretty definitively that High Noon Tex was created for copyright purposes, and he's got no reason to lie or cover for Marvel. It's worth looking into though. Kelvingreen 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)