Talk:Hank Henshaw

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: DC Comics / Superman Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Superman work group. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

The info box says Henshaw's first appearace was Adventures of Superman 466. This is wrong. The text says it was Superman #42. This is also wrong as the Excalibur is only seen from the outside in that issue. Henshaw's first appearance was Adventures of Superman 465. Heathcliff (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyborg as appearing in OYL, has all the powers and abilities he did prior to Inifite Crisis, but just prior to IC, Superman's canonical origin was changed from the

Actually, the bits and pieces of Superman's "new" post-IC origin contain both Man of Steel and Birthright. With writers being able to pick and choose, pretty much anything is possible. Even if they choose the birthright origin, they could just say he got a hold of the stardrive and therefore had access to Kryptonian technology and Superman's DNA.

Exvicious 06:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Scantron 00:16, 26 October 2006 (EST)

For some reason all the links below a point are all red, even the ones in the link box at the bottum.

It should be moved to Cyborg Superman, since that's his handle in most DC Compendiums (long after D&R of Superman). If no one responds within a few days, I will move it myself. Johnnyfog 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after the Reign of the Superman storyline, and up until his recent return in Green Lantern, he was known simply as the Cyborg in the comics. --DrBat 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, "Hank Henshaw" makes little sense.Heathcliff (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come there's no entry for this, seeing Cyborg Superman played a considerable role in this story as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeshi357 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that DrBat's problem with the image used is not shared by other members of Wikipedia; also, the image which he supplied as a replacement is muddled with captions and background details, and is thus not a clear representation of the character nor of his new costume. The subject of his wearing glasses is neither here nor there, as the Caption for the image clearly states that they are the glasses of 'His Arch-Nemesis, Superman'. It is also far more representative of the character as a whole, in that he has vanquished Superman, his enemy, and is challenged byt he JLA, his other enemies. Thus, there is no logical reason to change the image. SaliereTheFish 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the caption states; he doesn't wear glasses like that. Therefore, it's not representative of the character.

Not to mention, you didn't even source your image right (the url you gave has an earlier, less detailed version of the cover). --DrBat 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one minor detail, and the reader can work out from both the image and the rest of the article that he just took the glasses off Superman. And what on earth has sourcing got to do with it?SaliereTheFish 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a minor detail.

And images on Wikipedia need to be properly sourced. --DrBat 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your petty will does not represent the majority of Wikipedian opinion. You were wrong to upload that image because there was no-one to concur with your theory that it was inappropriate, nor had you placed the issue in this discussion so as to glean opinions for or against the change. As it is, you are the only peron who wishes that image removed. SaliereTheFish 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the source (which SaliereTheFish provided when they first uploaded the image but it seems it got lost in the mix somewhere along the line.

Also it is clear from the image why he is wearing glasses - he has just attacked Clark Kent, tearing open his suit to reveal his Superman uniform and is toying with the glasses in an insulting/triumphal manner. It is obvious from the context that the artist isn't suggesting that the character will be depicted wearing glasses. Clearly if a better image presents itself then it could be swapped in but given the history of disputes over that image it'd be wise to discuss it here first and come to a consensus. This goes for the other images on this page too just so we can avoid any unpleasantness and mess. (Emperor 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the statement directly above, the first thing that came to mind after seeing that picture was the fact that he (in his own little deluded world) was trying to follow through with his ruse of being "Superman reborn", wheither in jest or in seriousness, I'm not sure. I think the picture shows a perfect example of his origins (when trying to pass himself off as a Cyberneticly ressurected Superman), all the while showing the viewers just what kind of mental state this poor sap is in (assuming what I said was correct, he may actually think he's the real superman resurrected, didn't read the comics, so I can't give an opinion there). There are maybe other, better images out there I suppose, and like Emporer said, just swap em', some of you tend to get all hot and bothered by nothing, it's not that big of a deal, really, if I need to I'll photoshop the glasses out if that will make the constant bickering go away :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victis Kato (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Photoshopping: That would be trading up to a bigger problem. It ain't our image. We don't have license to digitally add or remove elements to the art. Crop yes, rework no. - J Greb (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed here and a consensus reached on which is the best one to use (which is the one currently in place - as of the time I started typing this). The project is looking to try and aim for stability in inobox images (as there was a trend to change them when a new one appeared) and so if anyone wants to swap the image it'd be best to discuss it here first and try and arrive at a consensus rather than swapping it back and forth. (Emperor 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What do people think of this image? DCincarnate (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Superman79.png

First, non-free image aren't to be linked to show on non-article space pages.

Second, it was one of the images caught up in the back and forth over which image to use. The hash out of that was there isn't a definitive "look" for the character. Of the four distinct takes, there was an equal "push" for both the "Cyborg-Superman" look and the Sinestro Corps uniform. Both frankly carry the same weight at this point, so no 'box image is preferable to POV pushing.

That being said, Superman 79 could be used as support for the "Reign of the Supermen" section. That would give the 4 looks, in context, and avoid the 'box issue. - J Greb (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that the Reign of Supermen cover is historical significant to the character? Also, using an image of Henshaw in his simple and original robotic Superman appearance, fits his name, "Cyborg Superman". DCincarnate (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character's first appearance, the Darkseid arc, the reveal as the Manhunter Grandmaster, and the Sinestro Corps are all also historically important to the character. The character has used various names, hence the default article title. "Cyborg Superman" may be the default being used, but there isn't a single look associated with that name. - J Greb (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded a picture File:Hank Henshaw.jpg, but after reading the template's message I decided to let you guys what to do with my image.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...

1. Chiming in almost 6 years after the thread ended is a bit of a problem. Starting a new topic would be better.
2. And that would be the3rd thread on this since a second one happened about 6 months after this one closed.
3. Bluntly: The least recognized version of the character fails the purpose of an infobox image completely. Please read the two existing threads and the project level MoS on infobox images.

Thanks... - J Greb (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Hank be added to the "Fictional Immortal" list? He's obviously far above and beyond any Kryptonian or similarly powered individual and has survived worse damage then most characters in DC. I mean, just recently he survived War World exploding at point blank. This explosion was meant to kill the Anti-Monitor and was said to be powerful enough to wipe out a galaxy. Hi, I agrree what a predicament for him to want to die and bieng immortal hampers that, remember he cried when he found out that the Manhunters brought him back to life. He is an immortal put it in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vagabond (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which image would you all like to have in the infobox? I'd rather have something in there rather than nothing at all.--Rockfang (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definitive look for Henshaw?

That was among the problems last time this was visited — the 'box being flipped between the "Reign of the Supermen" and "Sinestro Corps War" versions.

Right now, I don't see that either of those is more "definitive" for the character. Both have good points, both have drawbacks. Without a consensus for one or the other, neither should be placed into the 'box.

- J Greb (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we could find an image that has all the versions in it (see Supergirl), I think that might be useful.--Rockfang (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would likely run into one of a number of issues:

• An image commissioned by DC for a "Who's Who" type project. This would be at odds with fair use policy.
• An image from in story where one or more of the versions fail the project level guides for an infobox image.
• A photoshoped collage. Yes this has been done in some instances, but for fairly important characters where all the variations carry a lot of weight. Henshaw isn't in that category. There's also the issue of the image size — ideally withing the constraints of 250x450 when shown.
• Fan art. I'm not a big fan of using images either created by fans or commissioned by them. 1) It's generally done without license from the company/person that holds the rights to the character(s). And 2) it skirts the FUR policy of the image being published. Yes, a fan can self-"publish" in a gallery on his webpage, but this is a long way from DC publishing its material. The same goes for professional commissions that wind up on online auction/gallery sites. This is no more publication than hanging the art in a home or museum, or offering through a bricks and mortar auction house.
• Commissioned explicitly for Wikipedia. Which would be a big no-no whether it's the Foundation doing it or an individual editor.

- J Greb (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning for all but the second point. I'm not sure what you are referring to on that one.--Rockfang (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "in story panel"? The best examples I can give are Sook's cover for Nightwing #133 (it was suggested because it had Robin and '80s Nightwing, but both are faded images and incomplete as well as the current version being crouched in shadow) and image:UUHarlequins.jpg which is in use but is useless in showcasing the characters.

I don't think there's been a similar panel for Henshaw, but most for other characters follow that pattern. I doubt one for Henshaw would be any different. - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I understand now.--Rockfang (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

In Hank Henshaw#Manhunters: "Kryptonian robots are seen servicing the Manhunters". I nearly did a spit-take. Since "servicing" can be a euphemism for any number of sexual acts, is there perhaps a better phrase that could be used? I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic; perhaps the Kryptonian robots are just really, really friendly. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before HH comes back as The Cyborg, there was a robotic Superman. He fought as a Superman Stand-in and takes a lot of physical damage. If there are any true Superman fans that want to know the obscure, compare the images. It was after the byrne reboot and predoomsday.

My question

In ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #439, there is a robot Superman that is severely damaged through the course of the book. When the damaged and destroyed areas of the robot are compared to the overtly mechanical parts of the Cyborg Superman (from ÒThe ReignÓ), the similarities are amazing. Did Hank Henshaw steal the robot from Professor Hamilton? Will the secret of this be revealed in a later book?

Dan Jurgens answer

       No plans to deal with this.  Call it a coincidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.29.62 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hank Henshaw. 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/20140202225733/https://www.dcuniverseonline.com/shop/dlc-packs.vm?dlc=war-of-the-light-part-1 to https://www.dcuniverseonline.com/shop/dlc-packs.vm?dlc=war-of-the-light-part-1

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.

• 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) 00:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hank Henshaw. 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/20071011101506/http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews/119194449335916.htm to http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews/119194449335916.htm

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.

• 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) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]