Jump to content

Talk:List of Heroes characters/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Additional characters - Limit

The way the article is written at the moment, it lists every main character, ever character with superpowers and every relative of the main characters to have appeared on the show. In addition to this it lists major additional characters. Currently the limit for additional season 1 characters to be considered major is drawn at three episodes (meaning that every character to have been appearing in 3 episodes or more are included in the article).

This might be too generous - as seen above, there is a suggestion to change the limit to a minor of 5 appearances, which would mean that Nirand, Sheriff Davidson, Elisa Thayer, Nathan's Campaign Manager, Hank and Lisa, Lynette the Waitress and Aron Malsky are out of the article, while Zach, Tina, Audrey Hanson, Jackie Wilcox, Brody Mitchum and Thompson remain. Personally, I agree with the suggestion to change the limit to five - I think that in the long run it will gain the article if we skip the characters appearing in only 3-4 episodes.

What's your opinion? Pjär80 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What happens if we split the difference? Four episodes? Since the season is only 12-14 episodes long 5 episodes (almost half the season) is quite significant. Unless they are really quite minor (appearing incidentally, in the background, etc.) then 5 episodes is a bit of a commitment to a character. Padillah 12:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If we draw the line at four episodes Nathan's Campaign Manager, Hank and Sheriff Davidson will remain, and Nirand, Elisa Thayer, Lynette the Waitress and Aron Malsky will be off the list.

This is the statistics of the season 1 additional characters:

  • Zach - 11 episodes
  • Audrey Hanson - 7 episodes
  • Tina and Jackie Wilcox - 6 episodes
  • Brody Mitchum and Thompson - 5 episodes
  • Nathan's Campaign Manager, Hank and Sheriff Davidson - 4 episodes
  • Nirand, Elisa Thayer, Lynette the Waitress and Aron Malsky - 3 episodes

And a season is 23-24 episodes long, btw :)

Pjär80 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

People with multiple appearances should still be in the article, IMO, even if they don't meet recurring criteria. Ophois 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Including additional characters to have appeared in only two episodes? Cause that would add 16 characters to the list... Pjär80 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe three episodes. Ophois 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if i make things more complicated but i find Aaron Malsky more important than Lynette the Waitress(!) or Nathan's Campaign Manager(!). They guy seemed to have some background. Lynette just served coffee (did she? i don't even remember her!). And something else, since we are referring to both episodes and novels we certainly have to make criteria for including characters from the novels! The things are complicated. Imagine what is gonna happen if they are parallel universes with Hiro moving in space/time! -- Magioladitis 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. They need to be an active character to be on the list.Ophois 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I don't agree that Malsky has had more influence on the storyline than Lynette - it's that I can't figure out an encyclopedic, NPOV way to go about it.
As of parting the characters into active and non-active lists - IMO it goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) given that it takes a in-universe perspective, since it's not considering Heroes to be one entity; the past episodes have to be considered just as much a part of the series as the current. Additionally, it's very tricky to say which characters still are active and which are not (Meredith? Janice? Candice?) - at the end of the day, I don't think it could be done without abandon NPOV. Pjär80 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
By "active", I mean active role (actively involved in the plot during their appearances). Ophois 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Still the same - what is the NPOV definition of what is "actively involved in the plot during their appearances"? (Sorry for being a pain in the ass - I'm only eager to reach proper guidelines for the article. Hope that no one takes my sometimes straight forward way of discussing as personal vendettas :) ) Pjär80 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What if we put together "Additional season 1 characters" and "Additional season 2 characters" into one paragraph, renaming it "Major additional characters", make a note that it covers all additional characters to appear in five episodes or more, and finally move the characters who have appeared in 3 or 4 episodes to another paragraph - a table, called "Minor additional characters" and similar to Characters of Lost#List of recurring flashback characters, including name of character, actor, and a description - no longer than one sentence? Pjär80 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a funny idea. Maybe there are more for laughing, maybe but maybe a solution to our problem. What about "minimum minutes appeared in the show"? I thinks "Nathan's Campaign Manager" appears 1 minutes or less per episode. Mulski play more! :) -- Magioladitis 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe - that would mean some heavy original research ;) Pjär80 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should just leave it the way it is. Even though some of the characters are less significant, they are still encyclopedic references. We want the character page to be concise and accurate for people who may be researching the show. What if someone watches season one and they dont know who Nirand or Malsky is and they want more information? I think it remains encyclopedic this way. I am not saying add all the characters, but I think for season 1, three episodes should be the minimun for inclusion. this way, we still have the facts, without having to include people in only one episode, who may be extras. but on the other side of things NATHAN CAMPAIGN MANAGER IS POINTLESS! He didnt even have a name. NOT PLOT SIGNIFICANT. However, I dont really know, because Brian Davis and virginia grey was only in like one episode and he is very plot significant as it relates to sylar--76.168.220.243 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think we need to add a section of notable GRAPHIC NOVEL CHARACTERS like Guillame--76.168.220.243 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As the above user posted, I agree that it should be based on importance. Malsky was very important in his short appearances, as was Meredith Gordon. People like the campaign manager don't really matter, IMO. Ophois 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Linderman was only in 4 episodes (Less if you don't count him turning around at the end of "Company Man" and his three lines before being killed in "Landslide") but few can debate the characters importance to the series. I'd love for there to be a boolean test for importance but there's not, it's just something that consensus is going to have to dictate. All those who agree Linderman was more important than Mr. Muggles, raise your hand! :) Padillah 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire section is set up in a subjective way, could that be altered to a more definable method? Putting the characters into main and non main groups begs individual perspective and requires constant revision. A recent example being West. He's in the minor character list but with his relationship with Claire and implications in Isaac's painting there's good reason to believe his role may not be so minor. That also requires a subjective POV as to when to move him from minor to major. Maybe division by season they first appeared would be more logical, or something else entirely, but I can see this main non main thing getting messy. 68.109.166.1 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The other groups could use some work, but the "main characters" section is based solely on what the network/production company has indicated are the regular actors. That's why West won't be in there (unless the actor gets a new contract) and why Ando wasn't added until this season. --Ckatzchatspy 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but in what way do you mean it's subjective? 'Cause I don't see it. At all... Pjär80 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Subjective in a manner that what one person may see as a main character crutial to the progression of the story another may see as a minor charater only fleshing out the plot. Another example would be Molly's character. She's been in many episodes with several plot elements hinging on her character but is still not a main character. If the list is truely determined by official release of network information than maybe some clarification of the use of the Main and Minor titles is needed to reflect that. 68.109.166.1 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Major characters are those portraid by contracted actors (i.e. actors billed as "starring" in the opening credits). I would say this is stated pretty clear in the article (under "Main characters", but maybe it could be even better?
The characters who ain't main characters are either listed as "other characters with special abilities", "additional family of the main characters" or "additional season X characters". Of course this is a matter of taste , how to list the characters (as is every WP article), but the article is (once again IMO) pretty clear about how it works. Pjär80 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Character Status - episode reference

I think that the episode/graphic novel listed for the character Status should be made into references, like what it is now throughout the bios on this page. It will save room and make it look better, IMO. What does everyone else think? Ophois 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A simple ref to the bottom of the page if the reader needs to know where or how the character died. Padillah 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I was planning to do it anyway. -- Magioladitis 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I did it. I start to like to way the article looks now. -- Magioladitis 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Takezo Kensei

Officially his power is immortality according to NBC, healing is just a consequence of that. Sowhat do people think? Should it be left as "spontaneous regeneration" or or changed to "immortality"? Goodleh 01:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give a link to NBC that mentions immortality? --Magioladitis 09:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Immortality might not be a power as such, but a side-effect of the regeneration. If that's the case, we wouldn't list it here anyway. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The same argument is being made about healing - it's just a side effect of not being able to die. It's going to come down to a citation, if we can get a citation from NBC or the producers then we go with what we get. Padillah 15:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob... Alchemy, or transmutation?

I'd like to change to the more accurate, less mysticism-connoting 'transmutation' for his power, than 'alchemy', which implies the medieval laboratory and so on. The power, as listed, links to Transmutation anyway, so it makes more sense to list ist as such. Objections? thoughts? ThuranX 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, one of the writers referred to it as alchemy in a Q&A. Ophois 05:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12002 Ophois 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the term 'transmutation'. Alchemy aims 'transmutation' something Bob does it himself. -- Magioladitis 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember at one time someone had the scientific name for changing lead to gold but I can't find it in the history. Padillah 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Found the term - Chrysopoeia. Padillah 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Chrysopoeia is better term than Alchemy. -- Magioladitis 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I say transmutation.--Dil 01:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the writers said he can transmute stuff into other elements besides gold, Chrysopoeia probably doesn't work. Still, "Alchemy" seems to mean a bit more than just "the ability to transmute elements", so I'd say "Elemental Transmutation" fits best. Wanderer32 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We refer to other powers by what the writers call it, so it should be "alchemy" until referred to otherwise on the show.Ophois 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My, that's awful dismissive of consensus, and of all the discussion here, which shows five people of another opinion. ThuranX 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If the writers said Nathan's power was called "Bippidyfippidyism", would we have to call it that instead of "Flight"? Wanderer32 06:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Only if he started banging Mary Poppins. We need to strive for some amount of accuracy. Alchemy is actually the wider discipline that sought goals of Transmutation, the changing of metals into other metals. Unless the character has achieved his powers through a philosophical and mystical avenue of study and mantra, then I'm pretty sure we can use 'transmutation'. ThuranX 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Outdent. Also, Alchemy is understood to use chemical means, mixing or placement in a machine... That's obviously not what's happening. If I can't get you guys to go with Chrysopoeia then my second-place would be Transmutation. 76.186.135.163 14:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm averse to Chrysopoeia simply because it's clear from the writer's misuse of terms that he meant the character has Transmutation, esp. since that wasn't a lead spoon being used, but either the stainless steel found in modern restaurants. No restaurant uses lead utensils unless they feel repeat business doesn't lend to their profit model, lol. The confusion by a writer of alchemy and transutation is easy to explain if the writer interviewed wasn't the lead on the Mohinder character and hadn't done all the research, or if he's simply not the best at being interviewed. But the evidence we already have distinctly eliminates Chrysopoeia, he turned stainless steel to gold, not lead. That puts it into either a genuine 'Midas Touch', or full transmutation. Writers can do more with transmutation than Midas Touch, and we've yet to see them interpret a power extremely narrowly, so Transmutation is our best option. Should we see that he can ONLY do other metals into gold, I'd support a change to Midas Touch, but It sure looks like there's a consensus to not use Alchemy. ThuranX 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Alchemy isn't just changing lead into gold... It's changing one metal into another metal. Even the wiki page on Elemental Transmutation says its also known as alchemy. Ophois 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It says it in parentheses, at the end, without context or proof. As such, I've tagged it as citation needed. If a solid citation can be found for it, then we can consider it. Until then, the Transmutation seems to have consensus. Since the article already links to that power, I'm going to change it in article. ThuranX 16:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Chrysopoeia is not lead specific, that's what I like most about it. It literally means "changing into gold". Changing anything into gold. It could even apply if we discover he can change other materials into gold. Padillah 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Trouble is, Chrysopoeia refers only to changing stuff into gold. It doesn't work if he can turn things into elements other than gold, like the writer said he could. Wanderer32 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Does a verifiable citation exist that says "transmutation"? If not, consensus here doesn't matter, as we have to use what is verifiable (i.e. "alchemy"). I'll wait for a response before changing it back. --Ckatzchatspy 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? It links to transmutation, so unless you're plannign to make it link to Alchemy, there's no point. It's absolutely NOT Alchemy, as it involves no scientific, philosophical, or mystical method, just his 'power'. It currently links to transmutatino in the powers list, and since someone already stated that that power's also known as 'alchemy', thus meeting the citation, why mess with it? I see no value in lying to our readers. ThuranX 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 76.186.135.163 and ThuranX. -- 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)
The power it links to is also called alchemy. Besides, "Elemental Transmutation" doesn't fit by itself, since he's only been shown to use metals (and the writer implied that it's only metals).Ophois 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As Ckatz said, Transmutation isn't verifiable. The writer referred to it as "Alchemy". Besides, I'm pretty sure that a superpower would count as a "scientific method".Ophois 03:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
How can the definition of a word not be verifiable? Regardless of what any writer thinks "Alchemy" means, it is not the same thing as Transmutation. Transmutation is merely one of the goals of Alchemy, according to our own article on it. Wanderer32 07:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
According to wiki definition, Transmutation is only metal into gold. The writer said that he will do more than just gold.Ophois 14:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
From Wiktionary:

transmutation (plural transmutations)

  1. the act of transmuting or the state of being transmuted
  2. the supposed transformation of base metals into gold by the alchemists
  3. (physics) the transformation of one element into another by a nuclear reaction

to transmute (third-person singular simple present transmutes, present participle transmuting, simple past transmuted, past participle transmuted)

  1. (transitive) To change, transform or convert one thing to another, or from one state or form to another.
    The alchemists tried to transmute base metals to gold.
  2. (intransitive) To change, transform or convert to another, or from one state or form to another.
    Did the base metals transmute to gold?
Doesn't sound to me like it only means metal into gold. Wanderer32 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
All those definitions are either too narrow or way too broad. Ophois 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what about calling it "Elemental Transmutation" instead of just "Transmutation"? Is that clear enough? That's what the superpowers page calls it anyway. Wanderer32 09:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we wait and get more than a single, small example of his power? Does it need to be definitive right now? He's been shown to turn metal into gold. We could debate that the substance wasn't gold it was "gold colored" or that he turned "stainless steel into gold doesn't mean he can turn other things to gold". We've got one example and a purposefully misleading statement by a writer. I don't think we can come to a definitive conclusion. Let's call it as we see it (metal to gold) and edit it as we gather more data. Argument for the sake of debate will get us nowhere. Padillah 13:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, fine by me, so long as it's agreed that we have merely put the finding of consensus on hold, not accepted any particular consensus nore defualted to 'as is' on consensus. Bob's clearly going to be featured significantly after last night's revelations, so we'll have time. I thing it's fair to say that if he never uses his powers again, it's really a Midas Touch, only good for the funding he alluded to. ThuranX 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maury Parkman's power

It looks like we're gonna need a little discussion about what we call Maury Parkman's power. I'm sorry but "Nightmare Induction" is right out (it's just too silly sounding). "Mind Control" is much more lucid but implies that he can make a body do things and this has yet to be demonstrated. I'm not sure how I feel about "Advanced Telepathy". Telepathy is telepathy, either you can hear a person's thoughts or you can't. But his power isn't limited to reading people's minds. Is there a way to phrase "Perception Altering" a better way? What say thee? Padillah 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

High-level telepathy - it doesn't mean 'mind reading' only. Even though that are separated medias, Professor X has very similar powers. ShellSchocker 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur. He seems to have a higher level form of Telepathy and like ShellScocker said, a good comparison would be Professor X but I doubt he's as powerful as the Professor.--Dil 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Telepathy. Matt was able to transmit thoughts to Nathan, something he had previously been unable to do. If you can transmit, then - with sufficient skill and practice - you could probably send images and nightmares. My main clue is the feedback between Matt and his father - it was the same feedback as from Fallout when Peter and Matt read each other's minds at the same time. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend in this direction as well. Proficiency does not a power make. He even tells Matt "mind-reading is just the beginning". This would be a good use of the "Notes" field. Explaining the different levels of proficiency Matt and his dad have. Padillah 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, that's what I did. I also added refs, and incidentally broke the whole table. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Kudos on the phrasing. I was wondering how to say that. Padillah 20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maury has not been shown to control a persons actions. If he could do that why would he need to make them see things? Just make Jessica kill Bob. Or, more direct, make Bob kill himself. He can control a persons perceptions, nothing more. And, genjutsu? Where did that come from? Let's try and pretend we're writing an encyclopedia, OK? Padillah 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Monica's power

In the latest episode, didn't Micah say that her power is known as "muscle mimicry"? If so, that should probably replace "photographic reflexes" in the article, as it's more official.Ophois 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the power for linking is Photo reflexes, the description's open to a bit more interpretation. That said, I did add that info to the main Heroes article list of characters. ThuranX 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It may be linked to that, but IIRC, it's officially called "muscle mimicry". Just like Claire's power is "Spontaneous regeneration" on the show but links to the wiki article for "Healing factor".Ophois 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
When did Micah become the expert on what her power is known as? I would go by what Suresh called her power, as he probably knows better what it would be called than Micah, who pulled it out of a comic book. PureSoldier 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to make new controversy, but now I have an issue: Did Mohinder call her power "Adaptive Muscle Memory" or "Adoptive Muscle Memory"? Does he see her muscle memory adapting (or changing) automatically, or does he see her adopting new muscle memories? I'm gonna have to watch again tonight and see which he said. BTW, Wanderer32, "adaptive" is not a misspelling, it's a choice of phrase. Both words are legitimate words and have legitimate meanings in this context(thus the quandary I find myself in). You might want to try dictionary.com before thinking you are correcting something that's not wrong. Padillah 12:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He said "adoptive", and the closed captioning confirms it. I know "adaptive" is a word, but it's not what he said. That's why it's a mistake. Monica isn't simply "adapting" her muscle memory in no specific way, she is "adopting" new skills into her muscle memory. Wanderer32 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Takezo's name

If I'm not mistaken "Kensei" is an honorific (meaning "sword saint"), not a name. His name is just Takezo. Just like Yaeko's name is just "Yaeko", not "Yaeko swordsmith's daughter". If this is the situation I think we need to make this more clear in the articles (especialy Hiro's). Padillah 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My only concern there is that Hiro and others refer to the character as "Kensei" in dialogue. I agree that Takezo is probably correct, but it might cause confusion if our references differ from the source. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
They refer to him that way as an honorific. Like calling an officer "sir". That's not his name, that's what you call him cause he earned the title. That's the exact distinction I'm trying to make. Padillah 20:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I have the same pet peeve about Christ. That's not his last name, it's an honorific title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 October 2007
He's British. Takezo can't be his real name either. It's an assumed name, so he could very well have taken "Kensei" as his name, even if other people use it as an honorific. Wanderer32 07:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't his "real" name 'Adam Monroe'? 78.86.33.152 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is. This is an old discussion that is being ignored because it is no longer an issue. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivan

In the episode, "The Line" does anyone know who the actor who plays Ivan is? 74.232.226.191 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

occupation: student?

The term "student" as an occupation implies, I think, a college student or grad student. It seems very odd to refer to Micah and Molly as "students". Of course, the whole table is kind of obnoxious. john k 07:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

True - but sounds better than "Kid" or "Coma Patient". ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Molly's Power

Her power is listed as "clairvoyance," but a more accurate classification would be "remote viewing." For those of you not familiar with the term, I would suggest reading the article on it. Remote viewing is fairly well-known parapsychological topic, and I think that whoever is classifying her power as clairvoyance is simply doing so because that person does not know the proper term for what is happening. Lore aura 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit. If anyone has a problem with it, feel free to change it back for more discussion, but "remote viewing" is the most appropriate term. Lore aura 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ages

The show doesn't take at a stagnant place in time, and most of the ages we're going by are the Season 1 ages. At one point do we add one to all their ages? Granted it's March of 2007 in Heroes and Season 1 was October/November of 2006 so a whole year hasn't gone by, but... still. --63.139.170.32 06:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaito Nakamura and Angela Patrelli - Powered individuals?

It's balatantly obvious that these two minor characters are powered individuals, even if we do not know what their individual powers really are. Should they be moved in to the powered minor characters list with their powers listed as unknown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.28.14 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the many references that have been made I think I'm going to have to give this up. I just dread the edit wars we're going to have now. But all in all I agree they should be moved to the list of powered minor characters. P.S. use four tildes to sign your comments, please. It's easier to talk to someone if you have a reference (name). Padillah 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hana and Elle

I reverted some edits which moved Elle to the "other characters" table, and listed Hana as deceased. Elle is listed as a main character, as NBC lists Kristen Bell as a starring actress in their official publicity (which is provided at the reference for Kristen Bell). Hana is indeed active - though she did die in the listed graphic novel, she survives as a consciousness living in computers. She is arguably the main character in Heroes Evolutions, and is referenced in some graphic novels as well (even after her "death"). The provided reference makes this clear. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Active/Deceased and Age columns

In the past I have agreed, partially proposed, this column in order to simplify an older variation where we were writing the current status of each character at the end of the last episode (wounded, sleeping, etc.). After watching more episodes of Heroes, with all these time jumps in the Past and the Future and with cases like Hana Gittelman, i think we have to completely remove this column. -- Magioladitis 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, turf it. Same with the "Age" column, for that matter - not terribly encyclopedic, subject to speculation. --Ckatzchatspy 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree for the Age column as well. It's certainly not terribly encyclopedic for fictional characters. What happens after "one year"? Do we change all the ages? This is not correct according to WP:Fiction. We have always to write in continues present. Maybe a year of birth instead of age could solve the problem but I am the opinion we better omit the column completely. -- Magioladitis 10:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Even in normal TV shows, time does not move at a constant rate. Here, with all the time-jumps and special circumstances, we have no idea how much time has passed. There could be a very strong argument that Hiro has, in fact, aged two years but because of his ability only 6 months or so have passed. Age, at least, has got to go. Padillah 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I'll remove the Age column. I think nobody will disagree. Let's wait a little bit more for the Active/Deceased one. -- Magioladitis 12:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Here is the Age column and the notes just for the record. Column removed from main article. -- Magioladitis 12:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Here is the Status column and the notes just for the record. -- Magioladitis 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some personal thoughts. They may help us: Writing about fiction is difficult. An example of a correct use of tense is something like that: "Mohinder is a geneticist. In the first episodes he is working as a taxi driver, which quits later...". Right now it's like we want to describe a film but we are in the middle of the film and that makes things difficult. About the status: "DL is a character who later dies". When we write "Status", we obviously mean "as of episode xxx, which is the last episode shown so far". (Note, that if we were referring to a film this would have no value), but I don't see why this is worth to exist. We want to present the characters of a tv series not only for people watching it on tv but for people who bought the dvd for example and they just start watching it. -- Magioladitis 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone. It's been 10 days since I proposed the deletion per WP:FICTION of the Active/Deceased column. They were two more users for expressed their opinion (agree and weak keep). I'll deleted the column in the next few hours. Please if anyone has a different opinion to express it. I kept the column above so users who want can update the status there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted the STATUS (Active/Deceased) column, per talk above and WP:FICTION, and perhaps being a little bit bold. All information deleted is stored above. Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that - the article is better without it. --Ckatzchatspy 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word Former

I think we also have to remove all the "former" thing. Noah Bennet, according to WP:Fiction IS (and not WAS) a Primatech employee. -- Magioladitis 13:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICTION says the article should be written in the present tense, not permanent tense. In the present tense of the show he is no longer an employee of Primatech. Otherwise you end up with statements like "Mr. Bennet is an employee of Primatech and CopyKingdom" pretty soon He's going to have 15 or 30 jobs at a time. Padillah 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The correct is "In the episodes 1-10 the character is an employee of Primatech. Since episode 11 the character works in CopyKingdom." -- Magioladitis 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I undid your edit without checking the talk page first. my apologies!!  :). I will support wikipedia policy on this one. Whatever the policy says, let go with that. We could also site in parentheses the number of eps that the character held that occupation.. like bennet, primateach, eps 1-19. i dunno!!! i will go with policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisisinchrist (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As you see I didn't reverse back before contacting you. I want to see everybody's opinion on the subject. -- Magioladitis 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Evan - Revolutionary War

How can we claim his power is rapid cellular regeneration? This has not been confirmed yet in the graphic novels. He could be like Multiple Man and have the power of duplication. Hell, he could have all sorts of powers to convince someone that he has been killed. Super durability? Illusion? Biological manipulation? Body part substitution? Invulnerability? I think it would be best to leave his power as unknown until the Revolutionary War graphic novel is wrapped up.

Also, I like to think that Tim Kring et al would avoid creating three characters with the exact same ability. While I understand that they eventually have to double up, they are not being creative lately.

Wow. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Let's all try to refrain from putting down information that we aren't sure about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.198.196 (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Muggles

Why is this on here? Tabor (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Character infoboxes

I deleted "Relatives" and "Siblings" from Template:Heroes character box. If they are no objections I'll remove "parents" and "children" as well later today. These entries were already removed from articles so they won't affect anything. -- Magioladitis 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed "parents" and "children" from the infobox as well. As before, these entries were already removed from articles so nothing is affected. -- Magioladitis 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

I think the occupation column is unnecessary, particularly as many of them don't actually have occupations at the current moment. In course with that, much of what's listed would not qualify as occupation; my personal favorite is Sylar's being sociopathic murderer, not to mention fugitive for Maya, and the fact that Noah has three different occupations. If there's no disagreement on this it should be taken out. --iTocapa t 04:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I 've never seen that about Sylar. LOL. I'll remove it (I know I'll spoil the fun) I think in same cases occupation can be useful, if used correctly, for example for Isaak Mendez. But in general, I agree with you. -- Magioladitis 11:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. get rid of it. it is a pain in the neck to edit. Maybe instead of occupation, we can put a notes section and then add any minor info that needs to be stated. like for isaac, we can say painter and comic book artist. what do you guys think about that?--Chrisisinchrist 17:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Guest appearances

Would it be more helpful to list "appears in," instead of "first appearance?" –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional Season 2 Characters

Now that volume two is coming to an end, I think we need to review the season 2 charater list and decide which of the characters are notable enough for inclusion. Some of them are not. We need to include those characters who are notable to the overall plot of the series and who effected the season, rather than those who just appeared. Here is what I think.

  1. 5.1 Ricky McKenna- 'Very Notable
  2. 5.2 Bryan Fuller- Notable
  3. 5.3 Yaeko- Very Notable
  4. 5.4 Debbie Marshall- Notable
  5. 5.5 Will and Tuko-Not so Notable Maybe they can be included with Ricky's information. Will is probably more notable than Tuko. I dont think Tuko had more than 2 lines the whole season.
  6. 5.6 Zern- Not notable
  7. 5.7 Martha- Not notable
  8. 5.8 Caitlin McKenna-Very Notable
  9. 5.9 Derek- Not notable He already has a mention on Sylar death list. That is enough. Not all Sylar's victims are listed on this page and he shouldnt be either. He was just a guest star.
  10. 5.10 May- Not notable
  11. 5.11 Camille- not notable
  12. 5.12 Tatsuya Atsumi- not notable
  13. 5.13 The Swordsmith-notable

What does everyone else think??? The list to me does not have due weight. it is too detailed for some of the less or non notable characters. I can also say the same for season 1's list of notable characters.

  1. 4.1 Zach- 'notable
  2. 4.2 Tina -somewhat notable
  3. 4.3 Nirand- not notable
  4. 4.4 Audrey Hanson- notable
  5. 4.5 Jackie Wilcox- notable
  6. 4.6 Brody Mitchum- not so notable
  7. 4.7 Sheriff Davidson- not notable
  8. 4.8 Elisa Thayer- not notable
  9. 4.9 Nathan's Campaign Manager- who? Not notable
  10. 4.10 Hank and Lisa- somewhat notable
  11. 4.11 Lynette the Waitress- Not notable
  12. 4.12 Aron Malsky- notable
  13. 4.13 Thompson- very notable

Some of these characters are not notable enough to the plot of the overall series. what plot significant things did lynette the waitress, ninrand or sheriff davidson do? nothing. they need to go. all these un-notable characters have an honorable mention on the cast page under guest cast. i think that is all the recognition some of them need based on thier character. What does everyone think?--Chrisisinchrist 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up! To every single of them! I don't care if Aaron Mulsky and Lynette the waitress appeared in the same amount to episodes. I can judge who is more important. -- Magioladitis 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I 100 percent agree. Some of these characters were just guest stars and are not notable enough for inclusion. I agree with the list very much. Episode number as a basis for notability is stupid. Linderman was like in 2 episodes and he is probably more notable than Niki Sander and Micah Sanders. I say delete those non notable characters and just keep them on the cast page. We are not neglecting their pressence on the show if they are included in the cast page with their name, character name and number of episodes, as it is currently formatted on the cast page. --76.168.220.243 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive Merging of Character Articles

I disagree with all the massive merging that is taking place for all the recurring characters. Most of their pages are being merged without concensus. Eden's page was merged and only two users discussed it and made the decision. Why are these articles being merged? I thought this was a encyclopdia where a complete scope of the series was to be presented. We cant delete articles because a character is dead...no one remain dead on the series anyway. We cant continue to edit the Heroes pages based on what is happening in the moment and what is most recent.

Someone has attempted to Merge Molly Walker, Ted Sprague, Claude, Alejandro Herrera and Eden McCain to the List of Minor Characters page without enough concensus to do so. I strongly disagree with that. We cant just scrapped their articles because the characters are either dead or not current on the series. Users worked very hard on those character pages and they are important to whomever created them. This issue need to be discuss more before pages are redirected and merged. Redirects are often time just a sneaky way to delete an entire page. Those five character pages need review by a wide scope of people dedicated to the Heroes project, rather than a few users. Please come to the Heroes talk page to post your comments --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Some data as a start:
  • Alejandro Herrera: Article created: 25 September 2007 (after his first appearance in the show). Proposed merge: 26 September by Thespian. Real conversation started: 3 December 2007 (after his "death" in the show). Until now 9 people participated in the conversation, 7 agreed with the merge, 2 didn't (1 non-registered user).
  • Ted Sprague: Article created: 4 December 2006 as a redirect and 25 January 2007 as an independent article. Proposed merge: 8 November 2007 by Magioladitis. In a conversation between 8-29 November 4 users agreed only 1 non-registered user requested time to improve the article which never happened. Real merge happened: November 29 by Tone.
  • Eden McCain: Article created: 21 November 2006 (after her first appearance in the show). Proposed merge: 20 November 2007 by The no erz (discussion about this case was slightly mentioned in the Ted Sprague talk page). Real merge happened: 2 December 2007 (12 days later) by Tone and after no other opinion expressed. Article contains only in-universe information. Update: After this discussion began 3 more users voted making a total of 3 pro and 1 against (Chrisisinchrist). After the end of the discusion Chrisisinchrist merged the the article by himself. 13, December.
  • Claude: Article created: 28 January 2007 as a redirect and 27 February as an independent article. Proposed merge: 20 November 2007 by The no erz (discussion about this case was slightly mentioned in the Ted Sprague talk page). Real merge: Never happened till today.
  • Molly Walker: Article created: 8 November 2007. Proposed merge: 4 December 2007 by Magioladitis.Real merge: Never happened till today.
By these I can say that there is not massive merge attack happening or something like this. None "attempted" to merge Molly and Claude, just "proposed". Discussion still has to be done and I think discussion has to be done for each case separately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Start of comments moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes. --

I fully support such merging. This is a TV show, not an empire. The characters in question have limited Real World coverage, and limited story relevance as well, except Molly. Reducing Claude to two or three lines is quite easy: "Claude", who never revealed his real name, instead using an allusion to Claude Rains (linked), has the power of invisibility. In the first season, he was revealed to have worked for The Company(linked) in the past, but is currently living in hiding from The Company. He worked with Peter to help peter gain control of his powers, before disappearing again. He was portrayed by Chrstopher Eccleston, who left his rols as Doctor Who on the show of the same name, to take the role of Claude on.
That's all that's needed for Claude, not a full page. We do NOT need detailed character histories for all these people. If you want to know, watch the show, rent the show. The crunch on Fiction is well overdue on Wikipedia, and overall, I support it. ThuranX (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the statement above. The Placebo Effect (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-- End of comments moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes. --

I absolutely agree. You've given three examples, two of which were valid moves. This is not a merge attack. Their deaths prompted the merges because the deaths identified the end of the character's involvement which can now be encapsulated in a short paragraph. Yes, we are trying to be an encyclopedia, that means we have information on most subjects... not exhaustive information on every subject. There are several other pages that I can see being merged in the near future: Linderman, Issac, Elle, Monica, Ando,... if they don't contribute they are going to go away. Take a look at what the list of characters from Buffy the Vampire Slayer has turned into... everything is a major character. This is fancruft at it's worst and the articles are constantly being nominated for deletion. Padillah (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversation closed for Alejandro, Eden and Ted. Claude's article still hasn't been merged but it's gonna. User:Chrisisinchrist undid his own reversions and asked time to improve only Molly's article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all of this. I am going to work on improving Molly's article, but I support Eden, Alej, Claude and Ted being merged. I wont fight those anymore--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Candice's page shouldn't be forgotten, either. The no erz (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd Wireless Hero

Will anyone be putting up a page on Richard Drucker, an anti-Company man?? C&C Modder 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. There is not enough information released about him or enough notability to merit a seperate page. He does have a paragraph on the page List of minor heroes characters with special abilities, that you could add to and help improve.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ricky and Caitlin McKenna?

Is there actually a valid source that says that Ricky and Caitlin's last name is McKenna?--Ice Vision (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I put a "need citation" thingy next to it but someone remove it. I dont know when that was verified. I think it should be removed until it is confirmed. i dont think heroes wiki has even posted their last names as mckenna.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bridget Bailey's power

I don't think Bridget Bailey's power should be called "Clairsentience", as that involves psychic feelings instead of psychic visions. I know the character used that term, but it was only in reference to a chapter in Dr. Suresh's book, not as the name of her power. The power she describes having sounds more like Psychometry. Wanderer32 (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Muggles

He needs a subsection. --Howard the Duck 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He needs a mention under Sandra Bennet, at best. --iTocapa iChat 07:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happened to him? --Howard the Duck 07:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Petrelli's power

I refer to this sentence ". In "Elle's First Assignment", Claire's blood is likened to being the "next Linderman, the next Arthur Petrelli" by Bob, implying that Arthur had some healing ability." I know that people would have assumed his power would have a sort of healing factor to it, but if you read "Elle's First Assignment Part 2", then you'll see that the Company had absolutely no idea of her powers, so how could they mean her blood had regenerative abilities? I think Bob is referring to Claire's blood as a bloodline and family connections rather than in terms of ability. He was likely saying that Linderman and Petrelli were the ringleaders and heads of their time.60.50.196.210 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and it's speculation anyway. I've removed it. Wanderer32 (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela and Kaito

I moved Angela Petrelli and Kaito Nakamura from List of characters in Heroes to List of Heroes characters with special abilities as they do have special abilities, even if we do not know what they are. This seems like something that someone might revert without thinking about it, which is why I am bringing it up here. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I smell speculation and OR. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No powers revealed in the show. Maybe it was implied they have, maybe it wasn't. This TV series already tricked us many times. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There are citations. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Are interviews cannon? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this change. It is so speculative. I understand that they do indeed have powers based on interviews, however, the list says KNOWN super powers and angela and kaito have NO known powers. I think that change should be reverted until the powers become known. Since they have no known powers, they need to be reverted back to where they originally were. I understand that they have unspecified abilities, because I was the one who originally linked the interviews, but I still think they need to remain where they were until the power becomes KNOWN. they have no known powers and should not be included in the list.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Since user:thedemonhog is the only user that supports this change, i reverted it back to the original state. thedemonhog is the only user who has supported this and therefore, it should have been discussed before the initial change was made.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is called "List of Heroes characters with special abilities" not "List of Heroes characters with confirmed specified special abilities". Now that there is an opposition to the change, input from other users is encouraged. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. If the information can be verified by a reliable source, then it can be included. If the information is verifiable, not original research, and is of a neutral point of view, it can be included. The information is not speculation, as the interview states that Kaito has an ability(I haven't listened through the interview supposedly about Angela. It's not even written as you have to read between the lines for the information, it states the fact. I don't particularly like adding them in until we know what abilities they have, but that's covered by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is an invalid reason for not including the information. The only problem I have is that we have the non-main cast characters listed as "with powers, family members, other characters by season", but that's a different discussion. QuasiAbstract (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Season Two, disk one DVD extras, Kaito tells Ando what his power is. I am not sure how to cite a DVD extra though. The extra is called "I Too Have a Special Ability". Kaito can see all of the variables and predict the outcome of a situation. Would someone please add this, or are DVD extras not "cannon"? 66.45.142.10 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I spotted this to and remembered that the Wikipedia article didn't mention of it, turns out someone else had tried to edit it but it's been decided not to change it because the information is from a deleted scene therefore removed from the story for a reason, so we can't be too sure. Skyrail (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Angela's power is the ability to dream in the future and in the past. That's why the first power Peter absorbs is her ability, and that's why he dreamed himself flying. He also then dreams of Mr. Deaveaux in the past and somehow Mr. Deaveaux speaks to him (probably something to do with Deaveaux's power but unfortunately he's dead now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.93.97 (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Graphic Novel characters

I revive a proposal I did 2 months ago. I think the table in the List of Heroes characters is enough and we may delete the section. For most of the characters there is too little to say. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment We have omitted many tv characters from the List of characters because the didn't appear a lot and we have a consensus in keeping all the tv characters with special abilities. This is understandable. But the vast majority of the characters in the novels has a little significance in the show. I agree that we have to keep a record of this character but right now we are facing the following situation: Or the description is short enough to fit in a line of a table or so detailed to be in fact a detailed description of the novel. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge I agree NOT to merge the information. Graphic novel characters are important and the information should remain for those who want more information about those characters. whether minor or major, all graphic novel characters have had an impact in some way on the series or a main character. most of the graphic novel characters cross over into situation involving the main cast. I see nothing wrong with this page and do not support any removal or mergingof information.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge During this summer, the main focus of the graphic novels has been on The Company, and important characters who may appear in season 3. Technically speculation, but I believe that a character who appears in both the graphic novels and the series is important. And as far as I'm concerned, Thompson Jr. is a hell of a lot more likely to be important, whereas Ida May Walker, Au Co, Abu Abswan, etc. are worthless. There is no reason to only include characters that have special abilites, becaus emost of the major player in the graphic novels this summer had none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BioYu-Gi! (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
My vote is to keep the sections, but remove the table, if one of the two has to go. Ophois (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ophois. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, way to restart an old discussion. Anyway, let's cut it down to just the table, and expand it to have some more details. "This article is way too long (and if some of those characters are minor in a web comic…)." –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the reason the list is so long is the recent merge with List of Heroes characters with special abilities. We included everyone, and now that we've merge we can trim it to only major/notable characters who have only appeared in graphic novels. After that, the summaries will be shorter and the table should be gone. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll list who I believe should/could be summarised. Discussion can be put under each individual--Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Anya (possibly: connection to Haram and Claude)
  • Abu Aswan (possibly: was on the list as well)
  • Brian (definitely: multi-media notable appearences)
  • Felicia Brooks (possibly: Notable and supporting role in Evs arc/trained Donna)
  • Au Co (possibly: high impact on Linderman)
  • Leonard Cushing (possibly: Evs red herring/Eric's former partner)
  • Richard Drucker (definitely: major multi-media role)
  • Julien Dumont (definitely: major Evs antagonist/several clones connected to various others)
  • Donna Dunlap (definitely: major Evs protagonist)
  • Sean Fallon (definitely: Notable role in Evs arc/currently hunting Elle)
  • Howard Grigsby (definitely: was on Level Five where all have been said to escape)
  • Guillame (possibly: multi-arc/connection to Haitian)
  • Haram (possibly: strong connection to Claude/intentionally ambiguous fate)
  • Sabine Hazel (definitely: strong connection to both sides of the Evs arc/storyline left open)
  • Brenden Lewis (possibly: multi-appearing/connection to Donna, Eric, Paulette and Fallon)
  • Connie Logan (definitely: main Evs antagonist)
  • Penny Logan (definitely: major Evs antagonist)
  • Samir Mellouk (possibly: Pinehearst and Daphne connection)
  • Matt Neuenberg (possibly: multi-arc/connection to Elle/helped kill Hana and Drucker)
  • Devin Patterson (possibly: Supporting role in Evs arc/Bianca's former partner)
  • Sparrow Redhouse (possibly: interviews constantly state that she will have a large role)
  • Linda Tavara (definitely: multi-arc story/several storyline elements intentionally ambiguous/was on the list)
  • Eric Thompson (definitely: Main Evs protagonist/son of major season one antagonist)
  • Ida Walker (possibly: Molly's grandmother/strong connection to Linda)

OK the table has to be gone. I alreadu I placed a copy in the talk page, so we don't lose the info completely. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian

What happened to Brian, the guy who fixed the race for Nathan. I thought he, Kelly and one other guy shared a mention once, but now they're not here. Now that he's made an appearence in a graphic novel, he is more notable and should have a section. I mean, he had 5 or 6 appearences on Hana's site, the GN, and it looks like he might have a role soon, so he should be in here. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

evs dropper

Okay, here's a character who is essentially the next Hana, and has had more of an impact than say Unnamed Agent 1. He needs to be put in, but it is difficult to determine where he would go. Any ideas? BioYu-Gi! (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mohinder and Shanti Suresh

Okay, I don't know enough about Heroes to make this change, but if somebody else knows the correct information, please fix this. Under the entry 'Mrs. Suresh', it says that "she told Mohinder of his sister Shanti, who died prior to his birth." However, under the entry 'Shanti Suresh', it says that "she died at age five while Mohinder Suresh [...] was only two." They can't both be correct, right? Lenar (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a inconsistency within the actual series itself, so we don't know which is correct, as taken from the article on Mohinder: "She tells him for the first time about his sister, Shanti, who died when she was five and Mohinder was two (Inconsistency--Episode: The Hard Part where he tells Molly that he was born a few months too late to save his sister)." So we can't change it to be correct sadly. Skyrail (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Graphic Novel Characters

We need to start putting in graphic novels characters that don't necessarilly have abilites. Like right now, Sean, the main guy of The Kill Squad, has a more important influence than Ida May Walker. The same for Thompson Jr. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, I think for the graphic novel characters with abilities we just need a single line description. Check above for my opinion and why I believe that can we maybe facing a WP:Pokémon test situation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Noah Bennet

If Noah Bennet really has no special abilities, how is he telepathically able to communicate with Matt Parkman when Parkman and Bennet were being imprisoned by The Company? --151.196.165.107 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt was reading Bennet's his mind. There was nothing else going on telepathically. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mohinder Suresh's powers

IMO the table should list his powers, as well as the fact that he did not originally have powers. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. For now, all we've seen is an apparently temporary boost, one which seems to have resulted in his body falling to literal pieces. Until we know where the plot line is going, it's better to leave it as none, and wait. We are under no obligation to update hourly after episodes, or daily after a broadcast. In fact, under NOT#NEWS, instant updating of in progress events is discouraged. We can wait until we have citation about Mohinder's character development. ThuranX (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But he has powers as of the latest episode, so stating that he has none is inaccurate. If he loses his powers later, we could update the cell to state that he temporarily acquired powers. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I vote for giving it one more episode (since he wasn't addressed this week at all this week doesn't really count). If he gets to the other side of one more episode then we should mention that he's got powers and they were attained by injection. If he looses them by the end of the volume we can come back then (WP:PAPER). Padillah (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think we should wait. After all the world will not end tomorrow. Well, maybe it will. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Appearence Count?

Could we add a column with the information of how many episodes each character has appeared in? Many other tv-series do this, to see how "popular" or "used" a character is, I guess, and I'm not sure but at least I'd find this informaton to be of interest :) Daniel Berglund (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like trivia to me, plus WP:OR, because not all characters appear in each episode's plotline, but may appear in flashbacks, future-visions, alternate versions, and in the episode recaps. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It might be trivia, but it is not original research to note that someone was or was not in an episode. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer not to have this. We have the cast of every season. I think episode counting will cause many problems as stated by ThuranX above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers as references?

This is an encyclopedia. Are spoilers considered reliable third party sources? Is heroestelevision.com a reliable source? I don't think so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with "List of Heroes characters with special abilities"

I propose that this article be merged with the article "List of Heroes characters with special abilities". There really is no need to have them separated, as there is a lot of overlap. If they have an ability, they are still a Heroes character, so we're basically listing the characters twice. Ophois (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...again. I've never seen the reason to have information duplicated or linked to another list. It's really annoying and pointless to update two pages for the same information. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, since nobody objected, I've merged them.Ophois (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I 100% agree. Very few characters are without powers anymore.-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reviving my suggestion to remove all the Graphic novel characters and just leave the table with them. The last column gives a short description. We don't need a bigger one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No; if anything, the table should go, as with the merge it's now redundant. Better to keep the individual sections; they have the same information as the table and more, they're more readable, they're easier to work with as they can be edited individually without dealing with table markup, and they can be linked to from elsewhere. Wanderer32 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I support Magioladitis—this article is way too long (and if some of those characters are minor in a web comic…). –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a list article, there is no such thing as "too long". Wanderer32 (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:SIZE is a thing but additionally believe that the table is easier to read. I am always using the table when searching for information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, one sentence isn't sufficient for several of the characters. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Recurring column for main characters

There is a note by DL's entry on the main character table that reads thus: Only appears in two episodes of 2nd season, and thus is not recurring. Clearly whoever wrote that doesn't understand the meaning of the word recurring. So the reason for him not being listed there is...? And besides, recurring literally means appearing again, in this context appearing again outside their tenure as a main character. In other words, any tiny appearance in a series where they are not credited as a main character should be counted in the recurring column. What does it matter how many episodes they are in in one series? What matters, and what is notable, is that they are there. Or just change the column to "Guest Cast (seasons)". Actually, I'm in favour of that now the idea's occured to me. But either way, it's pretty damn stupid as it is and needs fixing. U-Mos (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Recurring means making multiple appearances. Just because they were previously a star and then make one or two appearances does not make them recurring in that season. Ophois (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Two appearances means multiple appearances. So two appearances in a season does make them recurring. One appearance does not make them recurring in that series, but it does mean their character recurs outside being a main character. Which is the important thing. And besides, as I said above, it's a silly line to be drawing. The important thing is they appear in a series where they are not a main character. Hence my proposal that it is changed to guest cast, to remove the ambiguity the term recurring presents. U-Mos (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In the real world, yes. But in the T.V. world it has to do with billing. The network and producers decide who gets top billing, who's a star, and who is a recurring character. It, oddly enough, has nothing to do with how often the actor actually portrays the role. Padillah (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. They decide if someone is a star or a guest star. If a guest star recurs, they are recurring. To got back to my original point, DL recurs as a guest star, and so is a recurring guest star. Why it being in two episodes only prevents it from being multiple appearances is beyond me. And, once again, it would be better to state the series they were guest stars and not main characters in, rather than going down this unnecessarily complicated route. U-Mos (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alejandro

And another thing. Alejandro doesn't have a power. All he can do is make Maya relax and therefore stop her from killing everything. She later learns to do that herself. Ergo he has no power. U-Mos (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But in interviews, they said that he is the antidote to Maya's power. You're basing all this on speculation. Additionally, in the episode "Four Months Ago...", everyone was affected by Maya's power except Alejandro. You call that not having a power? - Jasonbres (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you consider this speculation. Personally, I believe it speculation to say he DOES have a power. That he apparently isn't harmed by Maya's power certainly cannot be explained without entering that particular realm. As I said, all we have seen in the programme is him stopping Maya's power, something she is also able to do herself. Therefore it cannot be said that he himself caused the reversal of the effects. Of course, if there is something I haven't seen such as creators of the show talking about him having a power, I have no argument. But I've never seen such a thing. U-Mos (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
They have stated that they complement each other. I think it is speculation. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Initially they did, and it seemed Alejandro did have an odd sort of healing power. But the revelation that Maya could stop the disease without him puts doubt on that. The same for him being the "antidote". He was, but that doesn't mean the power came from him. That would be speculation, but Maya doing the same thing on her own means it's hardly OR to say it came from her at this point too. In fact, that would be less complicated. If I recall correctly, Mohinder allowed her to stop her power in The Second Coming (Heroes) also. It's not like I've figured this all out in my head and reached some crazy conclusion, it's how I've always seen it after watching series 2. I was surprised to see Alejandro included in the list of characters with abilities. U-Mos (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, he is immune to Maya's power. As well, he is shown absorbing the virus into his body to stop it. Ophois (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the writers have stated that it is his power (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=11644) Ophois (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You say "besides", that trivialises the whole discussion. As the writers state he has a power (or at least, don't correct the interviewer), we can't go any other way. Thanks for providing the link. U-Mos (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Revan46 It is obvious that Alejandro has a power. See any episode where they are in the same place at the same time. He holds Maya and looks her in the eyes while calming her down. She calms down, the black "plague" leaves her eyes, and at the same time we see Alejandro's eyes grow black as he absorbs the "disease".

Deceased characters

IMO we should mark deceased characters. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "deceased" characters? If someone watches the DVD version of season 1 then... they are all alive. Deceased or alive depends on the episode you are watching. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Contextual presentation and Wikipedia:Recentism. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine, IMO we should mark characters who die and stay dead in the main timeline at some point before or during the main timeframe of series. I just did a search, some other articles, such as list of characters from The Venture Bros., NCIS (TV series) and list of characters in The Simpsons, mark such characters, while others, such as list of characters from Grey's Anatomy, group them under separate headings. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to propose removal of all these marks. Already no infoboxes use "status" any more (unless i am missing something). -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed in 2 out of the 3 articles you linked above. In NCIS I think it's written "former main character". I have to think a bit about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to adding a death entry in addition to the played by, first appeared in, last appeared in and special ability entries? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, per the above comments and the removal of the "status" field; it is not needed. --Ckatzchatspy 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The standard character infobox template doesn't include status, but it does include a death parameter, and the lines at the top of the character sections seem to be concise substitutes for larger infoboxes. IMO the episode a character is killed off in is at least as important as the episode in which the character most recently appeared. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting Arthur Petrelli

First, please don't put a {{splitsection}} without starting a discussion also. It leaves us no where to talk. Second, Despite the current trend I do not think that everyone in the Heroes pantheon deserves their own article. How about we wait until he is in more than two episodes. He could end up defeated by the end of this volume and then we'd be back to deleting his article. In other words...

Oppose Padillah (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. We should table this until it's clearer that he's going to play an integral part of the show. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe that we should not give his own article until we learn more about him in depth. Right now we only know he is Nathan and Peter's father, helped found the Company, and has the ability of power absorption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan46 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For should it not also be Power Theft (i.e Rogue X-Men) rather than absorption? So far demonstrating - "Appearing to Angela in future dream and Paralyzing her", Telepathy (with Adam), Cellular Regeneration and Lightning Discharge.

This is not the place to discuss his power. But since you asked, Rogue's power is listed as "absorption", not "theft".Ophois (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For He is already a very important character and barring some unforeseen event (which, admittedly, this show is very good with), he will only continue to become more important. Also, he has been portrayed by other characters who knew him as the single most important character in the "pre-show" plot history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoaringDisbelief (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. There is not enough information on him to have a good article at the moment. Ophois (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per lack of in-universe information. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose He's not nearly important enough yet. Gaara the Fifth Kazekage (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - very little in-universe information to date, even less of the out-of-universe material needed to even begin to justify an article. --Ckatzchatspy 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per lack of notability independent from the show. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For He's become a big part of the show and he's currently the main villain. He's been in two episodes and I expect more. I also agree we should split him because he has a big back history and he deserves his own page more than some people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In most case we don't even mention characters with two appearances in the show! Creating a new article is not something like a promotion for a character. Check WP:RECENTISM, WP:FICTION and WP:WAF. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For He's the main villain of a volume, just like Adam, and he's dead too. I have a feeling he's going to be alot more important. Also, he was part of the Company, and his name came up several times in the first and second volumes. -- Cheezzhead (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that this article would be notable? Check WP:N. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Daphne

in the episode dyling of the light, when she weent to see sylar, at the end, when she ran off with the other guy.......together...how...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.84.42.134 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While this is not a fan forum I will address this so as to keep it out of the article. A body in motion is lighter than a body at rest. This is why Snowmobiles can race on water and why cars hydroplane. The speed that Daphne moves would cause most any body to become quite a bit lighter and she pretty much just drags them behind her, flapping in the wind. Of course this and any other theories are OR and have no place in this, or any other, article. Padillah (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Other way 'round, actually - or at least it was once thought to be the case. See here for a (rather involved) explanation. However, hydroplaning is based on fluid dynamics, not increase or decrease in mass. See Planing (sailing) for a better explanation of that concept. As for Daphne, well, that would be part of the magical physics of television... --Ckatzchatspy 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's as simple as Daphne can also make the people she holds go as fast as she can.

I think Daphne has been given a big enough roll, and that she has become important enough to the show, that she should get her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's simply not enough in-universe or out-of-universe information to warrant a separate article. While one could probably fill a fair bit of space writing our every detail of what she has done in the show, that is plot; a standalone article needs character information. --Ckatzchatspy 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Zach

Under Zach's profile when it talks about his being gay I find it very unprofessional to use the phrase "It got ugly." This tells nobody anything and since I don't know how it got ugly I suggest we delete it or describe in deeper detail how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.142.13 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you are going to have to talk to the producer. It's part of the quote and we can't change his words. Taken in context, coming right after the managers threat, it looks pretty plain that it's referring to the negotiations with the manager. If we take it off it lessens the impact of the quote and the ability to confer the level of upset the manager displayed. Can someone out there find a better quote from a different magazine, maybe? Padillah (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Other characters with special abilities

In case we need this again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Zimmerman in the list?

I remember that in the past we had a rule of at least 3 appearances. This character has... 1 and a very short. Why is here? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallcrawling

Why does wallcrawling keep getting removed as one of Mohinder's powers? He has demonstrated that he has this ability. Just because it sounds odd in no way means that it should be removed. Ophois (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his wallcrawling has more to do with his enhanced balance rather than actual wallcrawling. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, havng enhanced balance would not enable him to crawl up a wall. Secondly, he doesn't have enhanced balance. He says that he did tests, and his balance was normal. Ophois (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to tag every single ability the instant that it appears; instead, we are better off waiting to see if there is some explanation as to exactly what the ability is. Is he "sticking" to walls? Is it a manifestation of his enhanced strength? We don't know, and we don't need to rush. (Plus, even if we do incorporate it, it needs to be described better, rather than as "wall crawling". One could still link to that section, but the text should be more professional.) --Ckatzchatspy 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
How would it be enhanced strength? He's not punching holes into the wall or anything, and he's not gripping anything. His hands are flat against the wall (just like Spider-Man). It has been described as a "bug-crawl" by Greg Beeman, as Mohinder has developed bug-like powers. And there is no reason that it can't be called wallcrawling. That is the official term for the power in the comics. Ophois (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to add another voice on the matter, I don't see how the power can be called anything but wallcrawling. He crawls on walls... I mean, come on, that covers 100% of the name of the power. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
IMO "various bug-themed powers" would work well as a concise description of his powers. I think we'd need to source the claim due to WP:OR, but I think it would be fairly easy to find an adequate source. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Petrelli

There's been a bit of back-and-forth (myself included) regarding Arthur Petrelli's ability, so it might be worth discussing here first. I'm by no means married to my particular wording, but I do want to ensure that however we phrase it, we don't imply that the victims are permanently "depowered". (This is Heroes, after all, so it is more than likely that Peter will get his abilities back though some means.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Based only on the episodes, I think anything that implies that he takes the powers "forever" mustn't be in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He claims it's permanent in Eris Quod Sum. "Indefinitely" would work. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hana Gitelman redux

Why was Hana Gitelman removed from this article? Even if she has her own main article, there should be at least a link to it from here; she is, after all, a "character in Heroes". (Which section her entry best fits into, I'll leave to the experts...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Darrow (talk • contribs) 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Linderman

Do we know he can't heal himself? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, the only time we really saw him get hurt was when D.L. killed him, and that was so quick he didn't get the chance to use his power anyway. So, no, I don't think we know if he could heal himself or not. Wanderer32 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to "healing living things". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Miron

If there is in fact a rule that a character must appear three times for it to make it to this list, then why isn't Miron listed? (I apologize if that's spelled incorrectly) Miron Mohinder's friend, appered in the pilot, the episode "Seven Minutes until Midnight", and the episode "Homecoming." What do you think?70.153.159.139 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters omitted from list

I added the Haitian into what seems to be the correct section, "Other characters with special abilities", but also notice that some other significant characters (well, they have their own article) do not appear in the article proper: Bob Bishop, Hana Gitelman and Molly Walker. According to the title of the article, this should be a list of _all_ characters, not just _minor_ characters. So I think these should be added to the list, and some perhaps should be merged in -- the Haitian may be going to be more significant, but Bob is unlikely to be. --Cedderstk 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, some of the discrepancy is due to a recent merging of this article and the List of Heroes with Special Abilities. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Petrelli

I don't want to add this just in case it is vandalism, but has Arthur taken Hiro's powers, (the episode Villains) Matt G (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know. We know Hiro started screaming as Arthur touched him, but for all we know, there could be an interruption and he doesn't take them. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 22:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Could be a long shot, but perhaps Ando uses his powers to prevent them being taken (exhibited in a previous episode, perhaps) Matt G (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Arther also could've been using telepathy to read or control Hiro's mind, or using some other power to torture or kill him. Since we don't have a clear answer, we should state what we know and let the readers draw their own conclusions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
As of the end of Villains, Arthur hasn't taken Hiro's power. There's a very clear effect when Arthur takes a power, which hadn't been shown. If he does take them, it'll be obvious. What's actually happening? I can only speculate. Arthur's got a lot of powers and could be using one, Hiro could be screaming in fear, it could be another dream, who knows - we'll find out soon enough. -- WORMMЯOW  09:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Or you can go to SpoilerTV @ Blogspot and find out right now. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Now've you done it. You've gone an endorsed a spoiler site. Will we start seeing people using it as a reference? Probably. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this last episode gives good reason for not jumping the gun with assumptions. On another note, do we really need a table for four powers? Seems to take up more space than is really necessary. I'm removing for now. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur didn't take Hiro's power. Not only did Hiro uses his powers after he lost his memory Arthur took all of Peters powers. One of Peters powers was space time manipulation just like Hiros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.149.69 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Graphic novel, webisode, and micro series characters

These should include human characters as well, not just postumans. Characters like Thompson Jr and Kill Squad members are much more important than some random powered character that appears once. Ophois (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Aah, shouldn't both Going Postal and Destiny be listed under the same category? They are both web episodes, thought I'd put the idea forward before actually making any changes. 201.17.81.218 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Going Postal is listed as webisodes by NBC, but Destiny is listed as a "micro series". Ophois (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Destiny is also listed as webisodes. [1] Wanderer32 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dennis & Sylar's power

Dennis, who appeared in a recent graphic novel, was killed by Sylar in that same graphic novel. The article claims that it was a sonic scream, which I can understand. However, would that have done the trick of turning Dennis into a substance that resembles ash or made it look like he was being ignited? I would think, if anything, the sonic would have smashed him against the wall, but I'm not a sonic warfare expert. The point is, that I don't think it's completely clear whether the guy was nuked, fried, or smashed, nor I think we can precisely say which it is. If there was a interview with one of the authors that I missed, please cite it. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sylar no longer has his radiation powers, so the only power that it could be is sound manipulation. Ophois (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be OR? Especially since in the first season, no one knew him to have shooty gun power? He could have very well easily obtained a variety of abilities off-screen that we might not know about. So, I believe trying to narrow down the power to the list of abliities that we've seen him with would be OR. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact Auzemandius is right. Unless it is obvious what power it is (freeze or T.K. that he expressly admits he's using) anything else would be a guess. These lists of powers are getting harder and harder to maintain. Padillah (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever it is, the guy is dead; the frame where the survivors are getting handcuffed also features a bodybag.
Let's also not try to apply the laws of physics too much to a universe where flight, time manipulation, and invisibility are possible. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Knox's Death

Why is it when I added that Knox died by Tracy's freezing ability it was removed shortly after adding? It was shown in the episode, hence confirmed. Can an admin or whoever let me know? Revan46 04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Revan46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan46 (talk • contribs)

Knox's death is in the article... Ophois (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No his death in the possible future is posted when he's caught in Sylar's explosion. His actual death just occurred in the season finale of Villains on Monday, December 15. When I added that he was frozen by Tracy and therefore died, someone removed it. I'm curious why? Revan46 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Revan46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan46 (talk • contribs)
It says in the article: In "Dual", he and Flint revolt against Nathan Petrelli, as they feel that they won't be needed once an army of posthumans is created. As he later is about to kill Nathan, he is frozen and shattered by Tracy Strauss. Ophois (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well obviously someone pretty much took my post out them replaced it with their's. Although I suppose it belongs in that paragraph... Oh well, at least it's posted. 99.250.49.86 (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Revan46
Yeah, it's position was changed and it was reworded.[2] That tends to happen with a lot of things; welcome to Wikipedia. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Visions of Usutu

IMO we should mention Matt's visions of Usutu in the Usutu section of this article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a brief mention of Usutu appearing to Matt in the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I know, I made the previous post as a precaution against a potential edit war after I added a brief mention of the Usutu visions a second time (the first time, I had forgotten about the appearance in It's Coming, and felt that it would be more appropriate to state that he appeared to die in It's Coming pending further information). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Excessive plot and in-universe details cannot make up the entire article per WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. Characters need a general description and any really important plot events, not their entire history. Readding them does not help anything at all, as it only makes the article worse. TTN (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you did this, it was beginning to get a bit excessive. Jrssr5 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup is fine, but why the format change? That was one of the straight-forward parts of the article. Padillah (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see what the problem with the first and last appearances notes were; that was information presented in a real-world manner. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that the cleanup has gotten too excessive. I can see a lot of the stuff getting removed, but essential stuff like backgrounds and important plot elements (including their deaths) are being removed. Ophois (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What is excessive is the length of the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well... there's a certain amount of "tough shit" when it comes to the length. We shouldn't be so fixated on the size of the article that the quality of the article starts to suffer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Things can be shortened without merely deleting things. Ophois (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the cleanup is too much and a lot of character's info like Meredith's got deleted and the entire "The German" entry was cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the sections for abilities and appearances be readded. Ophois (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ando

is there a reason Ando doesn't have a section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.242.200 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes#Main characters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tracy is not an "Other character"

Tracy Strauss does not belong in the "Other Characters" section. She is a main character and therefore should be treated as such! - Jasonbres (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually looking at this earlier today... not sure how to address it, though. There's definitely not enough information to warrant an article yet, unless we can source a fair bit of out-of-universe material about the character. The text could be moved into the "Main" section, but it might look odd next to the table. Perhaps we should lose the table of main characters and reinstitute a short summary for each one, as per the "Other" section, along with links to main articles where needed. That would allow the text about Tracy to fit in. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is enough info now, I won't begin a page cause I'm not that familiar with the wikipedia style guide and the dos and don'ts. 189.4.250.18 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Will somebody just create her page already?? 147.197.190.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Tracy

Tracy is a main character and should have a full page instead of a redirect, just like every other main character. --CF90 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


I was just to ask why she doesn't have a full article.--Dil (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there really enough content to have a full article? There's barely any back story. While she is billed as a main character (due to Ali), she's been really nothing more than a supporting character. Maybe if there's more that develops with Villains, I would support a full article, but not at present. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur's Mental Manipulation

The article states that Arthur got his mental manipulation from Peter. The source for this claim is ambiguous at best. Are you sure they didn't mean he used THE SAME ability as the Haitian, but not his instance of the ability? But the main problem I see is that ARTHUR ERASED ANGELA PETRELLI'S MEMORIES 18 months ago. So CLEARLY it is confirmed that Arthur has some way of erasing minds long before Peter had one, IF peter has even has this ability at all (the Peter article does not say that he does). Linderman states that it was Arthur himself that does this to Angela. It seems absurd to be making this claim in this article with so many uncertainties. AllUltima (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you check the citation associated with it, you will see that the writers have stated that Arthur got it from Peter, who got it from the Haitian. Ophois (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
But then how did Arthur use it 18 months ago on Angela? He erased her memories, so he had some way of erasing her powers back then. Why would he draw on the Haitian's power when he already had the ability to do this? And I DID check the source, and they dodged the question -- they did NOT confirm this. They implied it. AllUltima (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
He used telepathy before on Angela, and didn't erase her memory. He just suppressed it with the idea that Nathan's death had to be done. Ophois (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Characters

How about we have something a bit more visual for the characters time in the show.

Sorta like how they do with directors and the actors they commonly use: (But with Volume up the top, and character down the side, room for ability at right side) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino#Casting

But maybe not with lame x's or ticks, but colours, with one colour meaning main cast, and another meaning like reccuring, and another meaning minor (Say if a previously main character, is in an episode in Volume 4, but is only in 1 episode for that volume) And you merge the cells together sorta thing. What you think? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Volume Instead of Season

Does anyone else think that under whether the main characters were main or guest cast that it should be volume instead of "season". Like if lets say Michah or Monica or something becomes main during volume 4, or Sylar or something becomes guest during volume 4, then you're gonna have to change a lot. But if it went by volume, it would be much simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, IMO we should switch to volume as soon as we have sources for volume 4's main cast. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Completely disagree; this would be contrary to most (if not all) other series articles, as well as imposing an artificial structure that does not reflect the studio/network actor arrangements. --Ckatzchatspy 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should wait and see how the show handles it. Even if characters like Micah return, the actors may still be credited as guest stars. Ophois (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to reprove my point, someone added more characters that came back and put "4" in the places even though the top says "season" at the top, so it should be "3"
Someone put the 4s in again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

S.L.W.

The character S.L.W. is referenced in the sections for Edward, Elisa and Santiago, but no links or any other information are given about this person. An additional section or a link would be appropriate, I think. Jmac1962 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tracy Strauss

Ok I think it's about time someone created the character article for Tracy. For heaven's sake, Monica Dawson has her own page, why doesnt Tracy?! 147.197.190.40 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As Ckatz has said "There was an article, but it was redirected (several times) because of a lack of real-world info. (It was essentially a plot recap, which trimmed and merged.)" This has been brought up many times. Any editor is able to create a page and if you do wish a page to be created, take the initiative and create it. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I DID create a page but some TWAT deleted it! 147.197.190.40 (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks aside, as Ckatz said "it was redirected (several times) because of a lack of real-world info". Once something more substantial arised than has already been put into her section, then an article would be pruden. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 22:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracy Strauss?

Shouldn't she really have her own article? BUC (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should she? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think so, she's a main character after all. BUC (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but only due to Ali Larter. There's not much to her character as of yet. But, you can always write one if you feel there's enough information to support an article. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There was an article, but it was redirected (several times) because of a lack of real-world info. (It was essentially a plot recap, which trimmed and merged.) --Ckatzchatspy 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hunter

Is there a reason why The Hunter doesn't have an entry about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that his first name is Emile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe his first name came from a spoiler, which may or may not be true. It's been removed. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
In the last episode, Noah goes to see him and I'm sure he mentions his name. I curse my poor memory, will have to check it out when I get home. -- WORMMЯOW  13:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I just rewatched that scene and the only mention of his name was as "Mr. Danko". I'll check out the other scenes with him in it when I get a chance. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is he in additional season 3 characters and not introduced in season 3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Because the introduced in season 3 is regarding characters with abilities. -- WORMMЯOW  12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, How do we know that his first name is Emile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know, but it's being used quite excessively. I've been through and checked the episodes, and it's not mentioned anywhere. I'm a bit behind on the comics though. Looking at the Heroes Wiki, it was released in one of the spoilers, but I can't see a reliable source for that. Pending such a source, I'm going to be bold and remove all references to "Emile". -- WORMMЯOW  12:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on this. It looks like NBC's Universal Media Village is now giving out plot summaries including the name Emile [3], I have no problem with it being put back in-- WORMMЯOW  22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebel's Identity

Has there been any discussion or mention from the creators yet about the identity of Rebel. It is sort of insinuated that Rebel and Nathan have a relationship. Eg - The PC screen flashed saying to Tracy "Have Hope" and then Nathan quoted that he was "Her only Hope". He actually enphasized the word hope, which is what caused her to hide his power from Danko. If I had to guess, I would say that Rebel is a technopath, hense his/her hacking ability, we have only seen 2 of these so far, Michah, and some other woman, who contacted Sprague (Radiation Man). I believe the story says she died in space, but downloaded her consciousness into the internet or something. It is interesting to note that Michah has not been seen in custody yet, perhaps Nathan is protecting him in some way? He did after all 'do' his Mom. Blunt, I know, but accurate. Baaleos (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

THe other reason for her to protect Nathan's power could have to do with whatever he was writing on the pad of paper and hiding from the camera. But that's just a theory too. Neither Rebel's power nor their identity, nor their gender, nor their intent, nor any other thing about them has ever been revealed. Even the "text message on the T.V. screen is in doubt (you can display any graphic you want as a TV signal, it is a TV after all). So that makes all of this speculation that we can't do anything with. HeroesWiki is, however, having a field day. Padillah (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SnakeChess5 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC) That's about to change. Reports have come in that this upcoming episode Cold Snap will finally reveal the identity of Rebel, but with dramatic consequences.

Claude

Why are we assuming that Claude's name is NOT as he identified himself in his first appearance? If there is question as to the validity to his last name, why are we not questioning the validity of his first name, too? If he identified himself as "Claude Rains", then why are we throwing out his last name without any in-content reason? ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 00:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be, any longer. I believe someone (Ophois?) came up with a citation that refers to him as "Claude Raines" so we should be set there. The contention lay in the obvious reference to Claude Rains, the actor who played The Invisible Man. It was always ever taken to be a quip and not regarded as serious. Review of the caustic manner he delivers his "last name" lends credence to this theory but could also be viewed as hateful irony at actually having the same name as the iconic actor. Padillah (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the graphic novels has him signing his name as "Claude R.". I had included a citation that showed his name as "Claude Raines", but somebody removed it, although the map that it linked to doesn't work anymore, anyways. Ophois (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat: "Why are we assuming that Claude's name is NOT as he identified himself in his first appearance? If there is question as to the validity to his last name, why are we not questioning the validity of his first name, too? If he identified himself as "Claude Rains", then why are we throwing out his last name without any in-content reason?" How can we really claim that he was "making a comparison" without a reference? ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he never self-identified as such. he said call me claude, was compared to claude rains, and left it at that. He never himself said his name, alias or otherwise, was 'rains'. It's that simple. We can say, with citation, that it's an allusion to Claude Raines, but that's it. IN the oldest archives are loops of this same topic, over and over. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to look it up in the actual episode, but according to a transcript I found, he says, "Me? I'm no one. I'm the Invisible Man. I'm Claude Rains. Now get away from me. Forget you ever saw me." Ophois (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's the basis for 'claude raines', then I insist that we relabel him as 'No One, aliases 'The Invisible Man', 'Claude Raines'.' The only grounds for calling him claude is taht at one point peter used that name for him. but if you can't see that he's being sarcastic, defensive and ... alliterative, perhaps? then we can't get anywhere. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just have a problem reading into anything anyone said, especially one that suddenly is seen when least expected. No matter if he gave his real name or not, he was going to sound defensive. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the debate of whether the article lists "Rains" as Claude's last name. However, IF we do list the character as "Claude Rains," then it really should be noted in the article (and not just in the discussion) that this is a reference to the actor (either as irony on Claude's part or as tribute on the writers' part). I don't think this should be considered speculation -- unless somebody wants to make the ludicrous argument that the invisible man in Heroes has the same name as the actor who played the original Invisible Man just as a pure coincidence. Minaker (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

According to his assignment tracker, "Claude Rains" isn't really his name, it's an alias he used during his career with the Company. Wanderer32 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page. Requiring a login. But, in any case, if Gabriel Grey can be referred to as "Sylar", then if CLaud Rains is the name that he used, then it's as valid as Sylar. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, click on file C024. Password is CRnop07in. Wanderer32 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Devaux

Does anyone have a source that says Charles Devaux has telepathy? When I was watching 1961, it seemed to me he had a persuasion power similar to Eden's, rather than telepathy...-- WORMMЯOW  07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there is an actual reference, but Matt Parkman also has those persuasion ablities as well. I believe the difference came from Charles' ability to know something that Angela hadn't told him. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 09:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I'll remove the fact tag, can you remember what it was he knew that Angela hadn't told him? I must have missed that! -- WORMMЯOW  11:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It was during the diner scene in 1961. Charles told her that she missed her prom and she loved the song that was playing on the jukebox. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Shell

In the graphic nivel "Into the Wild, Part 3", he is showed to be killed in battle; dead or not, it was never stated what his ability was (or at least I didn't notice it), but we can see his body is kinda transparent while lying on the ground, so he might have invisibility skills; if he had this ability, he might be the agent that helped catching Flint Gordon Jr. for the Company, although it's never named in "Villains". Nevertheless, it's clear to me that he at least display invisibilty. Can anyone check it at the comic? ´cause I'm sure this is his ability and I wrote it down in his bio but it got erased. In the comic, he is the one to the right of Julia Ryan, accredited as his non-powered partner, he is clearly translucid; any doubt, just zoom the page. TheCharlesOne (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the artist, the transparent guy is not Sebastian Shell, but Manuel the teleporter. He's not turning invisible, he died in mid-teleport. Wanderer32 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? in mid teleport? so the other side of his body was in another place I think. In the assigment tracker it says Sebastian Shell have some sort of ability to displace objects. I forgot to erase this comment. Sorry about that. TheCharlesOne (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Krause

She is an evolved human but with unseen abilities. I wrote her down but it got erased. She is clearly worthy of being on the graphic novels character list because she was seen and acredited in "Exodus" where she was drugged as any other posthuman and then Rachel Mills woke her up along with Gordon Hovey and Eric Doyle; Rachel try to escape agents' bullets by teleporting so they hit Mary instead killing her. Agents use to hold non-powered people in cells and to drug any posthuman, so she clearly was "one of them". TheCharlesOne (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What significance or notability does she have? She is just seen in one or two frames and dies pretty much immediately. Ophois (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying, what about Sparrow Redhouse or James Walker?? Sparrow has just few cameo appereances and yet no known ability, she is there just due to the fact she is a an evolved human and a fugitive (ring any bell?? yes, Mary Krause!!). And so James Walker, it took them months to say his actual ability and he wasn't even alive during any kind of story; I know the fact that he is Molly's father helps but Mary is still unknown, so she might be a relative of and old or new heroe coming up. Bottomline: if this is a list for evolved humans that appear in the graphic novels, it should list every character attributed as evolved human. Thanks for reading. TheCharlesOne (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sparrow has been mentioned multiple times in both the graphic novels and the show, and is still alive. Mary is depicted in a couple frames of one graphic novel and then dies. If she appears again or offers more, then she should be added. But she has no significance. In James Walker's case, he is both Molly's father and one of Sylar's victims, so he is important. He isn't a random posthuman that is thrown in for one or two frames. Ophois (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I kinda understand that, I mean, nobody ever wrote down the man that emites nervous gas when stressed that Penny took down, although I think somebody should put him too. Anyway, I guess we have to wait if she appears in any other story or flashback. So, point taken. TheCharlesOne (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

As you've both technically violated the three revert rule I've protected this article for a short time (rather than blocking you both) while we work out the difference of opinions here. Please discuss the matter here, and I will give my input. henrik•talk 05:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved party the way I see it is this: posting what might or might not be is asking the reader to make a supposition. Thus it is the same as speculation. If it's not a citable fact then we shouldn't have it in WP. So, if you take out the speculation-by-proxy you are left with "He has called himself Claude Raines." which is repetitive. Padillah (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We are dealing with two issues. The first is the initial disagreement. I seem to be outnumbered on the issue of whether my edit counts as speculation, so although I still disagree with this, I'll consent to the majority rule on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, the original dispute is over, and I lost fairly.

The other issue is misconduct. I agree that we were both guilty of the three revert rule, and also both guilty of letting a minor disagreement get out of hand. The result was each of us accusing the other of misconduct. The one thing he and I seem to agree on is that the misconduct should be addressed, and since an article talk page doesn't seem to be the place to go into further detail on such matters, we attempted to bring the issue to the attention of the administrators. As for which of us is guilty of misconduct, as I've repeatedly stated elsewhere, the determination of whose edits were made in bad faith and whose edits were made in good faith can be easily determined by looking at the discussion on our talk pages and in our initial complaints. If Wikipedia wants to wash its hands of the conflict I won't pursue the matter -- although such a decision would seem to be a determination to leave the issue of misconduct unresolved (and thus implicitly encourage such behavior in the future). Minaker (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you view the talk pages, you will see that you were hostile from the beginning and were making false accusations. Other than violating the 3RR rule (which I was under the impression didn't apply in that situation), I was merely following Wikipedia procedure in the situation. The admins have considered it resolved, so I would suggest dropping the matter. Ophois (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that's an awfully nice attempt on your part to disguise trying to get the last word in as taking the high road, but those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I'm willing to concede that maybe you're not being purposely difficult, maybe you just figure that the rules and reality itself don't apply to you for some reason, since I can't otherwise explain your comment that you thought the 3RR rule somehow didn't apply to your edits when you so clearly understood they applied to mine. As for the "false accusations," my only response is to once again encourage anybody reading this to do the research and see for themselves. I challenge anybody to find an accusation that isn't backed up by the facts.

As for you calling me hostile, wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If by "hostility" you mean that I actually respond to Internet bullying like yours, I guess you've got me pegged. Otherwise, if you want to talk about hostility, note the comments right here on this page. Everything I said in the May 10th comment above is completely 100% neutral -- no "Ophois did this" or "Ophois did that," just an objective review of the situation without ANY accusations, false or otherwise, save for those that are aimed at myself as much as at you. As I state quite explicitly and objectively, I was, barring administrative action, willing to let the matter rest, and was willing to go out on a neutral tone. I even typed up a nice little olive branch on your userpage, which you of course ignored. But apparently, despite your claim that you want to drop the dispute, my comment that "I won't pursue the matter" wasn't good enough for you, you had to re-ignite the whole thing with more accusations. Oh, but of course, I'M the one who's being hostile. Frankly, I am astounded by such a hypocritical stance that is so completely blind to the facts.

I twice tried to go out on a conciliatory note, and both times you spat in my face, so since you would clearly rather go out with us insulting each other, here's your chance. Get in that last word, throw in those final accusations and insults. Say whatever you like, but you're clearly beyond all reason, so I don't see the point in responding to or even reading any more of your insane comments. Minaker (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As per your request:
"Interesting how you completely ignore Wiki rules when it suits your fancy, but cite the rules when you think they're in your favor." - Because I was tired of people continuously adding the same thing that you had added over and over again after it had been discussed many times by other editors, I didn't include an edit summary, and you make this accusation.
"First of all, deleting the comments I made on this page is a practice in dishonesty and verifies your bad faith." - Because your edit apparently didn't go through (which can be easily verified by merely glancing at my page's edit history) you make this crazy accusation towards me, and continue to do so to moderators. And for future reference, people are free to edit their user talk pages as they please. (BTW, it's interesting how you made this comment yet then wipe this section from your user talk page...)
"Third of all, to challenge me to find a source for the existence of a debate which you yourself have taken part in further illustrates your own bad faith, your prioritization of argument over resolution, and your failure to properly follow or even understand Wikipedia rules such as Wikipedia:disruptive editing and Wikipedia:gaming the system." - Even though I explained to you that Wikipedia and discussion posts cannot be used as a source, you continued to be hostile, even though you admitted that you understood that rule...
"although just between you and me, we both know that at this point, you're clearly being disruptive on purpose" - It's funny how you claim I've also been hostile, but looking through all my edits, you're the only one making these kind of comments... You keep making all these claims against me, yet just like before, you have nothing to back it up.
"I'm willing to concede that maybe you're not being purposely difficult, maybe you just figure that the rules and reality itself don't apply to you for some reason, since I can't otherwise explain your comment that you thought the 3RR rule somehow didn't apply to your edits when you so clearly understood they applied to mine." - Same thing applies as the one above. As for why I believed it applied to you and not me, it is because what you kept adding is SPECULATION, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is why those warnings that I placed on your page exist on Wikipedia, and why your edit was also removed by someone else. Ophois (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's stop this right here. As far as I am concerned you both could have handled the situation better. But the original matter is resolved and we generally try to avoid blocking or admonishing people when there's no active dispute. It is however the responsibility of all users to de-escalate conflicts and not let them get out of hand.

If someone who is clearly a reasonable and communicative fellow keeps re-adding material you feel is in violation of policy you could probably have done a better job of explaining yourself. These edits weren't a blatant violation and reasonable people can disagree on the interpretation of policies. The right thing to do is to calmly and civilly discuss the matter. If you find that you still can't come to an agreement, try recruiting more opinions.

Comments about the motivations and opinions of other editors are best left out of the discussion. They do not tend to be productive. I would suggest you two avoid discussing this matter and generally stay out of each others way for a while. This is a silly dispute that got out of hand, these things happen. A few months down the road it'll be long forgotten, but when thinking back you'll probably both find that you could have handled it a bit better. henrik•talk 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Graphic novel characters

Currently, the section on graphic novel characters is limited only to posthuman characters. This has stopped important graphic novel characters such as Eric Thompson Jr from being added, and has also allowed for the inclusion of many insignificant characters that barely make an appearance. I suggest that the section be expanded to include all graphic novel characters, and the list of posthuman characters be trimmed. Ophois (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that, and if you have noticed there are bios of Penny Logan and Sabine Hazel, both non-powered. TheCharlesOne (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot details and minor characters

I imagine my edits will probably be reverted several times, so I may as well start this in case. Character articles describe characters, but they are not meant to hold every single plot detail relevant to the characters. Entries should have a basic description, background information if it is necessary, and plot details only if they deal with character development. Something like Doyle's development is fine to list, while random graphic novel appearances are unnecessary. Character lists also only deal with important characters. Minor characters are covered within plot summaries, and if people want to know more Wikia exists for that reason. TTN (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you being more communicative now than you used to be. I support your efforts here, in theory, but you should be aware that this article is the product of a couple of earlier merges of other articles, and too much paring away too fast may result in edit warring. At onepoint, IIRC< there was a list of graphic novel characters merges, a list of 'minor' characters merged, possibly a minor characters with powers merge... there' sa lot here now, and paring down entries may be more productive than eliminating, as you did with one of the founders of the company. One episode, yes, but it does make it easier for new readers to figure out that the writers aren't hiding one for a later season; that all were shown or explained. She aslso did a fair amount of connecting the backstory dots, so perhaps a brief threee lines or so would suffice? ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't plan on edit warring, but with the size of the list, there really has to be a lot of cutting and removals. Unless I can get this down to 60KB, minor, minor characters really should stay off no matter their importance. Overall, that should just be covered within the episode summary anyway. As I said, character lists aren't about plot, but rather describing the characters so they can be related to plot summaries. If a character is only important within the context of the plot, then it would be better for the description to stay there as well.
I understandf what you said. I'm saying that given the number of editors who DO work on the Heroes Wikiproject, and given the number watching this, there may be a need fro consensus. Further, 60K is rather arbitrary. As a goal, it's nice, but shouldn't come at the expense of article quality. ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There really can never be a real consensus when cutting lists. It's really just a trial and error kind of thing. 60KB isn't really my goal, but it would be the threshold for including minor characters. Many of the current character articles will also need to be merged in the future, so that will also add a large chunk to this list. TTN (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I also appreciat4 the effort but to remove a character for not appearing in enough episodes denies their importance in other ways. Especially with the multi-media presentation of this series, we need to take care in determining the importance of characters and what pruning is necessary. Padillah (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Importance does not have anything to do with the plot. I'll keep saying this over and over as many times as I need: plot should be the last thing that goes into a character list. That has to be the mind set to actually get this cleaned up. Otherwise, It'll be back to 150KB within a week. TTN (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if plot is no measure of importance, and number of episodes isn't a measure, then your edits are entirely arbitrary and should be reverted en masse, no? If you don't have reasonable criteria, and instead insist on simple 'trial and error' to find which edits won't be objected to, then you're not really improving the article. ThuranX (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The measure is their overall importance to the series or season. If you say, "Who is West?" it takes a bit of explanation. Now, it you say "Who is Samson Gray?", you just need to point to that episode. If you take plot importance into account, Gray is way more important to things than West, but at the same time, it is pointless to mention Gray if the article is this size. If if does come down enough, characters can be placed back. TTN (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think your metric should be presented here, then discussed. I think that both characters have good arguments for inclusion; by your own admission, in fact, he could be included. Let's discuss here, then work out front. Even if we have to do it item by item. ThuranX (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Main characters info box

I edited the box and added the main heroes first appearance and their latest appearance, only to have the edits I made to be removed. I made the edits again (it's a lot of work I'm sure you know) only to have the edits removed again. Apparently, more than one person has removed my edits and I did reedit the box more times. I want to know why you guys don't my edits in the box- Solarwildheart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarwildheart (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because no one else wants them. For one, it smacks of recentism. each week, many will need to be updated, which is pointless. Second, most first appearances can be covered in other articles, on the seasons or the characters. It's not needed in a list. ThuranX (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

If I find pictures of each character shall I upload them?

But not until I find every picture

Dmc2811 (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They probably won't reach non-free rationale if all of them are here. If there are specific characters in which their appearance adds something to their characteristics (I can't think of any now), then that would be okay. BOVINEBOY2008 01:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Petrelli in Season 4?

How should Nathan be handled in the character table? It currently lists him as being in Season 4, but Nathan himself is dead. The character depicted is in actuality Sylar... so should we change Nathan to only being in Seasons 1-3, and add Adrian Pasdar as a portrayer of Sylar? Ophois (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That'll work.

Emile Danko in Season Four (Comic-Con Trailer)

Although, it's hard enough to find a reliable source anywhere, Emile Danko can be seen in the Season Four trailer trying to shoot Tracy Strauss. If anyone can find a reliable source (which seems to be impossible), it's worth adding to the article. 80.177.217.162 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Daphne Millbrook and The German

I just notice these two characters appeared in graphic novels before they did it on the show, so I think they belong to the "Introduced in graphic novels" section, like Bianca Karina. TheCharlesOne (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Those sections, at least for me when I made them, were for characters that had a main presence in the graphic novels but were eventually featured in the series. Like Bianca, who was featured heavily in the graphic novels and then had a cameo in the third season. Ophois (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thompson

The name of agent Thompson keeps changing week by week, but in GN Rebellion is stated by Micah that his son's name is Eric Thompson Jr., making him Eric Thompson Sr., right? I know he is long dead in the plot but still his son is out there and it can be somehow confusing if he appears again. (TheCharlesOne (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it should be Eric Thompson, Sr., but some anon keeps removing it. I have restored it. Ophois (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
How is that not OR? Couldn't the son be named after the grandfather? Or would that be "Eric Thompson II"? Are there truely rules governing this kind of stuff? Padillah (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's Junior if named after father. If he is named after someone else, then it would be II. Ophois (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter's Empathy

In tonight's episode, Peter Petrelli was called an "empath" by Ray Parks' character, Edgar. Is this considered reliable enough to change Peter's power from Power Mimicry to Empathetic Mimicry?

I re-started an old conversation on Peter's page. Please take the talk there. Padillah (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sylar/Peter's mimcry

OK then, so Peter's power is described as "power mimicry". I agree with that. There's no reason to say "emphatic" when describing his power. None at all. So why is Sylar's mimicry power described as "emphatic mimicry"? Seems like a massive contradiction to me. They should be called the same thing, and if you ask me that thing should be simply "power mimicry". U-Mos (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter's power is no longer through empathy, but through physical contact. Ophois (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Too fan-like, that sentence. Peter's power, as far as I can see from the talk pages, has always been retained as "power mimicry". Sylar's should be the same. U-Mos (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the Heroes ARG listed Peter's power as "empathic mimicry", so for a while it was listed as that on the pages. However, there was debates about it, though I can't remember if any decision was finalized. Ophois (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Milly

Does anyone else think that Milly should have an entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Amanda

About Amanda, the daughter of Lydia, I think she was introduced in Slow Burn second webisode before she appeared in Boom GN, right? Based on this, I put her on the Webisodes introduces characters, although I think she can be misplaced here because in GN she will have a major role in Amanda's Journey. TheCharlesOne (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Trimming

I think that a lot of characters on this list need to be removed. A lot were carry-over from the list of powered characters, which listed every character, regardless of importance. There are many graphic novel characters making brief appearances that are not important at all. Ophois (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Samuel's Character Profile Should Be Moved to a Separate Page?

Okay, so after the first couple of episodes, Samuel Sullivan was no longer a guest star and instead made into a main character and Robert Knepper (the man who portrays his character) into the main cast. Therefore, I propose that we remove the content pertaining to this character in its current format on this page and transfer it to a new specific page like all the other main characters.  Snake Chess5 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. His section is just a regurgitation of plot, no real world aspects. There's no point in creating an article for him at this point. Ωphois 06:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, it doesn't have to be just a regurgitation of plot, there are aspects about Samuel that have been revealed on the show that can be laid out separately and besides, the majority of the information on the pages for other main characters is mostly rehashed plot too, so there wouldn't be much difference.  Snake Chess5 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And those aspects "revealed on the show" would be in-universe. Outside information is needed. And you're right, it's not different from the other Heroes articles. Most of them should probably be merged back into the list, IMO. Ωphois 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm....Monica/Copycat? Anyone?

I dont know if its just people being forgetful or Tv shortens a persons memory span but why is there no mention of the Season one character Monica who could mimic powers and was called Copycat in the series comic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.100.24 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Monica Dawson (aka St. Joan, not Copycat) is listed in the main characters section. Ωphois 15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, not to mention the fact that her character is from season two, and it is adoptive muscle memory, not power mimicry. Snake Chess5 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pasdar or not

U-Mos, since you disagree on the use of Pasdar as one of Sylar's portrayers, please give your reasons. Ophois (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "every reason", but as you genuinely seem not to understand I'll go into more depth. Adrian Pasdar plays Nathan Petrelli. That's it. Yes, he's dead. But that doesn't matter. Sylar's body is in his form, ie. Adrian Pasdar's form, ie. Adrian Pasdar is playing Nathan Petrelli. He'd be playing Sylar if they actually swapped bodies or something like that; the knowledge that Sylar is underneath does not matter one jot from an out-of-universe, encyclopediac view. Besides, Sylar is still around. Being played by Zachary Quinto. If we list Adrain Pasdar as playing Sylar, by rights we should list Ashley Crow, that guy who plays Danko et al as well. That would be stupid. Also, from a simpler view listing Pasdar again is simply unnecessary. Also, I do not consider my edits as bold. This is really a pretty clear issue in my opinion, and I am genuinely amazed that you think Pasdar should be listed in this way. Obviously I'm at 3RR now, so I won't be changing it back at this particular moment. U-Mos (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason we don't list people like Ashley Crow is the same reason we don't list all of the people who have played young Hiro. It's because they only play him for a few minutes in one or two episodes. Pasdar has been playing Sylar for multiple episodes already, and will continue to do so for now. And this is also related to the plot. It's not that Sylar has been turned into Nathan permanently. One of the plot lines going on is that Sylar is slowly resurfacing. Ophois (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
But he hasn't turned into Sylar! Sylar has, unknowingly, assumed the FORM of Nathan. Pasdar is not playing Sylar. Angela has a vision of Sylar rather than Nathan, he was played by Zachary Quinto. Sylar's consciousness transfers to Matt's mind, and he is played by Zachary Quinto. Pasdar is still playing Nathan. U-Mos (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, he's assumed the FORM of Nathan. It's not the actual Nathan. It's his memories and personality, with the latter slowly giving way to Sylar's. The character of Nathan is dead and gone. Ophois (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No! This is fiction, it doesn't matter that it's not really Nathan, Adrian Pasdar is still playing him and not Sylar. U-Mos (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, he's playing Sylar as Nathan, as shown by the depiction of the personality traits of Sylar. Ophois (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
We're going to need a third opinion here I think. U-Mos (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Ophois (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, was there actually a consensus/agreement for listing Pasdar as playing Sylar in the past? I see you raised the issue on this talk page with no response. U-Mos (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody responded, so I made the change, and nobody debated against it. Ophois (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds more like lack of interest/noticing than anything else to me. U-Mos (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as this article didn't run rampant with unchecked vandalism or other objectional material, I find that doubtful. Ophois (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: Okay, first, 3Os take a little time; we're not sitting there compulsively reloading the page. Onto the question: Petrelli isn't portraying Sylar; if anything, it's the other way around - at least in the show's canon. In real life, Pasdar is still portraying Nathan Petrelli, and Quinto is still portraying Sylar. If you look at Characters of Lost, you'll see that Terry O'Quinn is still marked down as playing Locke, even though we found out that that's not necessarily true. But I would leave it as being just Quinto. As a side note, I see that this has bled over to the Sylar article. That article is a huge mess and really needs a lot of work. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in Lost's fifth season, O'Quinn plays both Locke and the impostor. It's not a clear-cut thing like in Heroes. Ophois (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Pasdar plays Nathan and no one else per the numerous shapeshiftings throughout the series. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Those shapeshiftings are one-time things. Sylar being Nathan is something that lasts throughout the volume. Ophois (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, unless someone can produce a verifiable reference that says Pasdar is playing Sylar, we must go with what we already know from NBC et al; that Pasdar has been contracted for the role of Nathan Petrelli. Otherwise, we're speculating based on personal opinions derived from viewing the show. --Ckatzchatspy 08:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz. And I'll throw in in-universe too. The argument for Pasdar playing Sylar being Nathan is too in-universe. Unless the show changes and Pasdar recognizes that he is Sylar then he's playing Nathan. Padillah (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So you agree that if Sylar resurfaces to that extent (which judging from the show is bound to eventually happen), then Pasdar should be added at that point? Ophois (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sylar will come back to his own body (it's in a preview video). What happens to Pasdar (if he remains in the show at all) after that we will see. U-Mos (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying if Sylar stays as Pasdar and knows he's Sylar then Pasdar is playing Sylar. But that goes against my argument for Pasdar not being Nathan right now (for the "powers" argument). If he's not playing Sylar and he's not playing Nathan, who is he playing?</think out loud> Hmm, I think I'd have to give this one to you because the powers are still from Sylar so there's tacit recognition that the body is physiologically Sylar. So if we need to recognize that Pasdar played him for an extended period then so be it. Do we have a threshold in mind for how long an actor portrays Sylar to elicit recognition? Nathan is, to me, an exception because it's a main actor playing a role that's not their standard role for longer than one or two scenes but I think we should have something in place for if this happens in the future. Padillah (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Ophois (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it would appear that has happened. As of Brother's Keeper, Nathan is now aware that he is Sylar, plus Sylar's consciousness has transfered back into his body, and as was shown on the trailer for Thanksgiving which will air tonight, Sylar's consciousness begins to reemerge while the body is still in its Nathan form. Therefore, it is plain to see that Adrian Pasdar is now also portraying Sylar.  Snake Chess5 05:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long... but yes. I agree wholeheartedly. This also changes the Nathan Petrelli article since it should now be recognised that "Nathan" doesn't have these powers, Sylar does. I'd also be willing to include Greg Grunberg as having portrayed Sylar since the portrayal was blatant and obvious, Sylar's psyche in Matt's body. Padillah (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If Grunberg counts as Sylar, then that would also mean that Francis Capra (Jesse) portrayed Peter, which I support. Ωphois 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Just as with every other similar debate, be it powers, actors, main character status and so on, please keep in mind that what we think doesn't count. (Remember the "Peter vs. Sylar" powers debate?) Unless we have references to support our assertions, we cannot make statements about who is playing who. --Ckatzchatspy 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nowhere Man"

The mini series that Eric Doyle is in is called "Nowhere Man", which is also the name of a Beatles song with a "similar" sounding theme to what his plot it. Is there any proof or evidence to back this? 148.61.31.16 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 148.61.252.233 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for Jackie's perception of Zach

Jackie's section has been flagged for a needed citation and an improper synthesis for stating that Jackie believes that Zach is gay while he actually isn't. It's pretty obvious though, as Jackie is constantly taunting Zach with names such as "Claire's gay friend" and whatnot, and coupled with the producers' original idea of having him actually be gay (while in the end deciding not to, for reasons described in Zach's section) this is the most plausible conclusion to reach. Perhaps this should be cited somehow or written into the section if it really isn't clear enough to be obvious. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the alleged improper synthesis is the assumption that she's wrong. As I understand it, the writers originally intended Zach to be gay, but, due to a number of factors, they decided to drop the plotline. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it is speculation that she believes him to be gay. Just because she is taunting him doesn't mean she actually believes it. Ωphois 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. We should state the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

section size limit

I think that (unless there alreaddy is one) that there should be a limit to how big the individual chracter sections should be. if it is a certain size, it should be given its own article. for exaample, the section on Emma Coolidge is quite large, & I think, if it gets any bigger that it would be worth seperating into its own article. (see List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Emma_Coolidge.) but that is just what I think. & I also think that we should let the people of wikipedia decide. J (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Angela's and Peters Powers

I've Angela's power to only Precognitive Dreaming because that's all she's ever experienced before. She's never Manipulated someone's dreams and she's never dreamt the past.

As for Peters power, his power isn't just "Power Mimicry" it's "Empathic Mimicry". He copies powers and uses them by thinking about how the original user made him FEEL. This was said at the beginning of the series in Season 1, he used his power by thinking about how the person made him feel, but over time it pretty much was like moving his fingers because of him getting more experience with it.

I've also taken off the additional powers for Sylar because all he has is Intuitive Aptitude. What I mean by he only has Intuitive Aptitude is that he doesn't have Empathic Mimicry, when he copies a power through emotion, he's just examining how their powers and emotions are connected so he's basically examining the brain from the outside. And when I said all he has is Intuitive Aptitude, I didn't mean he don't have his Copied Powers. And He doesn't have Power Absorption because he's not Absorbing the powers, he's rebuilding the system that activates the power, he does it by using his Intuitive Aptitude when he examines the brain or the persons Emotions.

Oh and I've seen the part about the theory about Arthur Petrelli getting his Telepathy from Charles. That's not a possible theory because we've seen episodes were Arthur used Telepathy in a Flashback but in other episodes, Charles used his Telepathy in the present date. When Arthur steals a power, that power is gone forever unless another Special has the power to bestowal abilities or anything like that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessia1111 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, though Sylar does have empathic mimicry. In the episode where he and Elle are locked up together, and Elle is losing control of her power, Sylar tells Elle to forgive herself for making him a monster, or something like that. When Elle forgives herself, she regains control of HER power, and Sylar GAINS her power. This is the only time he uses emapathic mimicry. Otherwise he does use intuitive aptitude, didn't he do something with a watch that was slow and figured this out?Winxrocker (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation Please?!

Sylar only has INTUITIVE APTITUDE. Empathic Mimicry is PETERS ABILITY Angela HAS NEVER MANIPULATED DREAMS OR DREAMT THE PAST UNLESS IT WAS A MEMORY! SHE ONLY HAS "PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessia1111 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sylar is revealed to have empathic mimicry in Season 3. Also in that season, Angela is shown manipulating Sylar's dreams, and Peter uses Angela's ability in Season 1 to view the past. Ωphois 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Stand alone Emma Coolidge article

Are we going to have to salt this thing? Please stop recreating this article. Padillah (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling-

not sure its source, but "heroeswiki.com" has (Candice) Willmer rather than Wilmer. Just checking that the latter has been checked? :) Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

About half the actor pictures here are too different (Takei is 20 years younger, Glover is 25 years younger/aspect ratio on Glover's picture is wrong etc.) – what can be done about it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Catalyst

This article says Hiro's father Kaito implanted it in Claire Bennet, but i could have sworn she only GUESSED that she was the Catalyst, and she turned out to be completely wrong--the Catalyst was actually in Hiro's mother. Am i remembering incorrectly? 70.17.201.175 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The catalyst was indeed in Hiro's mother, but she transferred it onto Claire when the latter was a baby. When Hiro and Claire go back in time, they alter that event and the catalyst is transferred into Hiro. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

President

Is there a reason that Michael Dorn isn't listed as a character (starting with season 4, I believe)? I searched the history in case this had been brought up, but I don't see anything on it. Hack-Man (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Split

A similar discussion is going on with the List of Heroes episodes article. It seems even more necessary to me here, because this article is getting quite cluttered, and could really benefit from splitting to a separate List of Heroes Reborn characters article. Even though Heroes Reborn is a continuation of the original series, it's pretty self-contained and should have its own set of articles. —2macia22 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do this later tonight or tomorrow if there are no objections, then. —2macia22 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing character

[16] is missing Trevor Zeitlan (played by Jeff Staron). This character is mentioned on other Wikipedia pages, such as [17] 2001:470:26:402:AC9A:172F:BFFE:5B6E (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Director: Greg Beeman, Writer: Jeph Loeb (2007-02-19). "Unexpected". Heroes. NBC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b Director: Paul Edwards, Writer: J.J. Philbin (2007-10-08). "Kindred". Heroes. NBC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Director: Adam Zane, Writer: Chuck Kim (2007-04-23). ".07%". Heroes. NBC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); horizontal tab character in |credits= at position 30 (help)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference SevenMinutes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference sixmonthsago was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Heroes Novel #34: "The Death of Hana Gitelman, Part 2
  7. ^ Weiland, Jonah (2006-10-30). "Behind the Eclipse: Heroes Episode 6". Comic Book Resources. Retrieved 2006-10-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference landslide was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fallout was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference run was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference HEAT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Primatech Paper Assignment Tracker - Stephen Canfield (File C006, password SCwem43ib)
  13. ^ Primatech Paper Assignment Tracker - Eric Doyle (File C019, password EDwvar70p)
  14. ^ Harrison Wilcox (w), Micah Gunnel (p), Mark Roslan (i). Heroes: The Kill Squad, part 3, vol. 1, no. 95 (2008). Aspen MLT, Inc..
  15. ^ "BEHIND THE ECLIPSE: SEASON 2, WEEK 2".
  16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Heroes_characters#Introduced_in_Season_Three
  17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_gun
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Heroes_characters/Archive_3&oldid=1249258104"