This is an archive of past discussions about List of Heroes characters. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Formerly in Archive 5

Peter

I'm probably opening a can of worms, but in the last episode didn't Claude call Peter an empath? Would that be a trustworthy source, or do we need more to say that he is in fact an empath (I never though he was until Claude said that) PureSoldier 15:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In interviews he's been called an empath for a while, and since it's stated in canon, I added it to his profile. He's not an empath in the typical sense, but he recalls emotions and feelings of people in order to mimic their abilities, which is a sort of empathic mimicry I guess. Jacobshaven3 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Claire's age

Apparently print and Episode info is conflicting. Can we get the citations for both up here, and then discuss both? and I do mean, in that order. Citations, and then discussion. There is simply NO point in arguing first, esp. if it means there's no cite for one side or the other. Thank you all. ThuranX 05:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there still any arguing? It seems everything settled down when people starting direct quoting "The Fix" If the episode data disagrees with the print data, for the most part I would say that the ep is correct. Of course, having said that there is always the case of everyone in the world EXCEPT George Lucas knowing Princess Leia's last name... WookMuff 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added citations to this page and to Claire Bennet, as follows:

"The Fix". Heroes. 2007-01-29. NBC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

--Ckatz^chat _spy 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be in order. WookMuff 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

in Run!, her real mom says she's 16... what the fuck writers... what the fuck... -Xornok 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know what I'm doing is OR, but if the fire was exactly 14 years ago, and Claire was 18 months old. That makes her 15. However, if the fire happened 14 and a half years ago, she'd have just turned 16. Maybe Bennet gave Claire the wrong birthday in order to prevent people noticing the differences, meaning she is 16 according to her mother, but Bennet's new birthday makes her only 15 in her mind... Of course it's OR so un mentionable, but would explain the differences. Jacobshaven3 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

She's 15, but since she's "almost 16," Meredith just rounded up and said she was "16." She'll probably be having a sweet sixteen in an upcoming episode. Anticrash talk 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my addition is faulty. But if the fire happened 14 years ago, and Claire was 18 months old... couldn't she be either 15 or 16? And considering we've specifically HEARD her being referred to as 16... I feel like that oughta be stuck with. --Harlequin212121 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Character Importance Distinction

How do we tell if a character is minor or major? I mean, Silar, Ando, and Claude have appeared in almost all episodes or have become ery importany, yet they are listed as minor characters! I can understand Ando, as we dont have much info on him. But Silar? Timebender13 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To keep a neutral point of view, only the eleven characters and actors credited by the show as main characters and actors are listed as such. Although Ando and Sylar have appeared frequently, they are still credited as minor roles.- fmmarianicolon | Talk 16:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on fmmarianicolon's response, the cast members that are officially labeled by the studio as "main characters" are the ones that we list here as main characters. The rest are credited by the studio as guest or recurring characters, hence they are listed here in a minor capacity. We do not determine who is main and minor, that is decided by the studio. As mentioned above, Sylar and Ando are both recurring characters, not main. Anticrash talk 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Zane's ability.

Disintegration or Molecular manipulation? From the definition, i chose Molecular manipulation since we saw the objects that Sylar melted shimmered like it was warping, then it completely melted. That seems like Sylar destroyed the molecular bonds of the toaster. What do you think? dposse 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think molecular manipulation is a good term. It seems he either breaks down molecular cohesion or converts solid matter into liquid. Anticrash talk 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

- Personally, I tyhink "molecular manipulation" is a bit misleading. It makes it seem that he can do more than just melt stuff, which he can't. Editing Maniac 14:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nathan's Age

It is virtually impossible for Nathan to be "26+". If his daughter is almost 16, that would mean he had a child at 11ish. Granted, by the facts, all we know is that he is over 26. However, isn't the 30+ that I saw a day or two ago more accurate? Valaqil 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that its not impossible to conceive a child at age 11, its best to keep the speculation to a minimum. Nathan being 26 is not likely, but it is still a realistic possibility. I personally think he's 35, but my personal opinion doesn't matter in an encyclopedia. If the possible age range is 26-150, then thats how it should stay until we get confirmation. Anticrash talk 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, to the point that I think no age should be listed. The fact that Nathan is Peter's older brother is already there, so what about adding that he is the father of Claire and removing any actual age/age range. If a number of some sort must stay, then it just has to be closer to 30+. I doubt he has superhuman conception powers. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a collection of realistic possibilities. =) CrayonsTasteLikePurple 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know "unknown" would make the most sense. We shouldn't be making guesses or estimations. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I said "virtually". Yes, we've all studied a bit of biology. No, it is not impossible. However, given the typical realities of life, the odds are extremely highly against someone aiding in the conception of a kid at eleven years of age. Virtually: "for the most part; almost wholly; just about"

Back more to the point: I agree with CrayonsTasteLikePurple and think that "Unknown" would be a nice change for not just Nathan, but all characters with unknown ages. To remain strictly NPOV, "Unknown" saves the editors from working with what is "possible" or "realistic" and only reporting facts. The fact being that we don't know. Valaqil 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

actually, the youngest parents ever where 8 and 9 years old and lived in China... -Xornok 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Though at an unspecified point in time, Nathan Petrelli was an infant when 'Dallas' Petrelli and 'Austin' Linderman learnt each other's names. Considering they met during the Vietnam Conflict (while Linderman was apparently blonde) and Nathan was already born during the war (the mission Dallas was on was towards the end of the war, and he got a letter from his wife about his son), his age can be estimated from there. The sources are the 'Lonestar Files', graphic novels #25-28 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gigawolf1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

stupid question perhaps but...

Are the Graphic Novels actually confirmed as canon? I mean it is the obvious assumption that any supplementary material created closely in conjunction with the show at the same time as the show is going to be canon but is it actually confirmed? This isn't a dig at anyone, I just don't know personally. WookMuff 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any sources off hand, but yes the graphic novels are considered canon, and I recall reading that they have been used for some scenes that they couldn't use in the episodes due to budgetary constraints, though not solely for that. Jacobshaven3 10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, thank you WookMuff 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They are located on NBC's website and contain information referenced by the show. For example, Micah's fight is in a graphic novel and then he talks about it with DL in the show. Given the connections, I would say that it is safe to call it canon. 199.209.144.224 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

more importantly: also, it's silly to not group at least some of the minor characters in some NPOV. a glaring contribution that could be made is "heroes killed by sylar (for their powers)." if it were set up the same way as the "main characters" table, it would get rid of quite a few of those clogging up the contents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.138.223 (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

It's perfectly fine the way it is. dposse 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

no, no it's not. it's a huge list, and while this is common with all sorts of banal things on wiki such as television and sports, it's not actually a good thing. all of the main characters get their very own page, which is why the main character section is so small, it would be really great if we could spin off at least some of the minor characters in such a way. dead characters, family members, anything as long as there is some concensus here. THIS LIST IS TOO LONG, DENYING THAT DOES NO ONE ANY GOOD.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.52.205 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually, since each major character has their own linked to page, there's no reason to mess with it. ThuranX 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense

I see that much of the article has been reverted to past tense, which isn't the standard way of describing fiction. Is there a consensus to change it back to present tense, or is it fine like it is?--Trystan 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem with many of the entertainment-related articles. As soon as a character dies, or leaves, they get "written out" of the Wiki text ("is" to "was" etc.) I think your idea of sticking with the guideline is the right call, both for consistency and for clarity. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry about that! I would be doing that, changing to the past tense. My apologies, I forgot the way to write about fiction. Once again, I apologize. Cheers! ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

List of characters with superpowers

The work is appreciated, but is this list really necessary? It takes up a lot of space and duplicates much of the content in the "Main characters" table. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's completely redundant. We already list if the characters do or do not have abilites and what those abilites are. dposse 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It also contains more than just the main characters. Not to mention the episode the superpower is demonstrated in. Why are you so rushed to delete? Cburnett 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Half of the table replicates data available immediately above it in the "main" table, and as such is a waste of space. The other data can easily be integrated into the individual character outlines, again saving a lot of space. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything there is alrady on the page, except perhaps a couple of episode references. ThuranX 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is based on the presumption that the main characters section should be a table not in prose. I'm no member of the anti-fair use posse but even I don't see how there's sufficient discussion to warrant inclusion of fair use images. In fact, there is no discussion just "stats". Being so owning of this article prevents me or other users from doing something that actually improves the article. I was actually planning on converting the "main" table into prose but my edits got reverted not 15 minutes from when I started. Cburnett 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound similar to the rest, but the main characters table already lists their powers on a column; the other people who have powers already have it stated in their description. There isn't really a need for another table that duplicates the information already provided. And we are NOT owning anything. So please, don't start with that. It's not what you think. Cheers, ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's out of line, and inaccurate. There are a number of major contributors to the page in the history, more than one objects. This is a consensus matter, NOT an Ownership issue. IF yo ureally think it's that important, redo the page in a sandbox, then post the whole thing here, and call it being bold. I don't think it's worth it though, and as for fair use, small thumbnails aren't tough to argue. You're more than welcome to try setting the entire page to imageless prose, but good luck getting wide support for that. ThuranX 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Claude's Power

In the article it states that claude can control his power, but in one of the first times he meets peter he tells him that he cant change back. if someone can find a citation to something of the like, it would be appreciated. James Castle 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Claude obviously can change, because in 'Unexpected', we see him quite visible when Bennet tried to stun him (this might have been the Haitian) and while talking to Peter in his apartment (or whever they were). After Claude yells at Peter, he turns away and becomes invisible again before storming out the door.

When he's hit, he's hit by a potent electrical charge and quite possibly knocked out, it's possible his ability only works whilst concious. As for him walking out, he could just have left Peters range, and it was Peter turning visible (and thus unable to see Claude) not the other way around. Both for and against are possible. Jacobshaven3 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't think he was knocked out long, if he was at all; I seem to remember Claude asking Peter what he was doing after Peter threw him off the wall, and Peter said something like "I'm doing something unexpected." Plus, couldn't Peter still see Claude, even if Claude was invisible and he were visible? Isn't that what the case was when Peter first met Claude? And Claude couldn't be out of Peter's range because there wasn't much distance between Peter and the door; Peter first saw Claude clear across a street when he was rummaging around someone's purse. --Arwen undomiel 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter turned invisible accidentally due to his power, enabling him to see Clause in the first instance. It's all speculation anyhow since we can't be certain what happened ether way. Jacobshaven3 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He is able to change back if he wants, but he can't because he's afraid that they might find him. 87.99.28.126 11:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote where Claude tells Peter, and I'm paraphrasing, that you wake up one morning and it's there and you can't turn it off, is most likely talking about powers in general. That people with powers just can't stop having powers. 192.203.136.254 14:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Mr. Muggles

Please merge any relevant content from Mr. Muggles per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Muggles. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 07:56Z

Too many other characters

(The below conversations were all about reorganizing the list of characters and/or splitting some characters onto another article. I've united them under one "==" header so there's less repeating or spreading of the same conversation in multiple sections. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)) (fmmarianicolon left the 'older' version in. I've since REconstructed it, with subsections more correctly (without duplications , and with subsections.)ThuranX 03:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This list is getting out of hand. Is it even necessary to list every character in Heroes? People like Zane Taylor, Charles Deveaux, Hope, Aron Malsky, etc are irrelevant for this article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not a fansite. —hippi ippi 12:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Many characters, even minor, have important influence on various plot points. For example, Sylar is currently impersonating Zane, Charles Deveaux's building has been painted by Isaac as important to the explosion, Hope in part led to Ando and Hiro parting ways, and Aron was important to Linderman, Niki/Jessica, and Matt's plots. For previous discussions on this topic, please read at /Archive_3#Trivial_characters and /Archive_4#Some_Characters_Unnecessary_for_Article. There was also a previous discussion about possibly splitting the list into two, by either main/minor or powered/non-powered, but I'm having trouble finding it in the archive. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they influence some storylines - but hardly. Some mention should be made... I suppose... but I still think some of these characters should be removed. This list is ridiculously long. Something should be done about this. —hippi ippi 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't change the lengthe of the article, but I still think it would help if we broke it up into dead and alive characters. Most of the dead are more minor characters, so they could all go at the bottom, and the the alive characters, who end up being in many episodes (and are usually more important), would be nearer the top of the page. --Arwen undomiel 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus, the last few times this same issue comes up was to hold off till the end of the season, then evaluate and summarize. It may turn out that Ando is out of the series, and thus by season three's end could almost be footnoted to 'When Hiro first travelled to America on his quest, he was accompanied by a friend, Ando, who later in the first season returned to japan after Hiro came to some new realizations about his path to herodom", or some such. However, given the interwoven storylines, we need to hold off. Further, what if Hope really is connected to Linderman?and Gustafson demanded his share, not that she turn herself in, so he too may be connected to Linderman. Let's wait and see. ThuranX 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the list is rather long, & it could really be helped by creating sections for different categories of characters. Not just based on their screen time or powers, but other attributes as well. It would make it more managible & meaningful. --Duemellon 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What categories do you suggest? I thought about family, although that probably wouldn't work when considering Claire's family tree. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one category should be "Other heroes" for minor heroes. -- Magioladitis 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorize them by chronological appearance.
Dead or not dead
Who's Storyline they're part of (Claire's friends v. Nikki's friends, etc.)
By the color of their hair & eyes (idunno! just brainstorming)

--Duemellon 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As we've seen, Characters overlap, and intertwine. Hiro to nathan and Peter to Isaac to HRG, or Claire to Peter to Nathan to Claire's Mom? Parkman to HRG, Sprague, and Wireless? or Parkman to Sylar to Jessica through Linderman? I think that the 'storyline' thing would RAPIDLY fall apart as the characters begin to intergrate storylines. A sub-category of 'Deceased' might work for the DeVeaux' and a few others, Victims of Sylar might work, but generally, I think that the Minor Characters list would best be served with a 'season one Minor Characters' Sublist, for those like Charlie, and then a 'recurrent Minor Characters' list to lead the page for fastest reference, and since they're ongoing instead of in the past. ThuranX 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I seperated characters with special abilities ("minor heroes") from the other characters. I think that instead of having long descriptions for minor heroes, we have to make a table such as the normal heroes with smaller descriptions and links. The table must contain each indivisuals ability. In this list Tracy Chobham, who has the ability of teleportation (!) can be added. She is found in Suresh's map as seen in the official site. -- Magioladitis 03:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not "Heroes". Well, we don't know that for now. I have renamed the subheading to "Other Characters With Abilities". I still believe this list is too long and some characters can be left out. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 10:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a table with "Other Characters With Abilities". This will help to make shorter descriptions and omit things that already exist in other places. Needs work to set the correct information. I have many "unknown" entries in the table. -- Magioladitis 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This table is ugly, and bulky. Further, discussion is nowhere near complete here. I've reverted it out, and am leaving a link here [1] to the last version with table, for evaluation during discussion. ThuranX 03:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The comments column was really big and.. ew. We're better off not having the table. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The current edit showing categories by 'faction' isn't bad overall, but that table is still a mess. ThuranX 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From a personal standpoint, I like the faction breakdown. From a Wikipedia editor standpoint, however, we should remember that we are striving for featured article quality. I'd like to point three aspects of featured articles in particular:

Featured Articles are understandable to experts (Heroes fans in this case) and non-experts alike. Thus, we should not use several categories as this may hinder a new reader in locating information about a particular character.
Featured Articles are stable, which means they lack of frequent edit changes and edit warring. In its former incarnation, this article had only two categories (Major Characters and Other Characters) or three categories (Major, Other with Powers, and Other). All characters neatly fit into those two or three categories except Simone, Ando, and Sylar. Any questions about their status was easily resolved by pointing to the cast list: NBC says Simone is a main character and the other two aren't, so that's where they go. In its current version, many more questions may arise as to where a character belongs. This is particularly true of the recurring characters section as we have don't have a source to denote who is recurring. Is Ando recurring or just Hiro's friend? Was Eden a recurring character, or was she a Primatech employee, or was she Mohinder's friend, or was she a victim of Sylar even though she committed suicide?
Featured articles use brilliant prose. The tables are meant to give a quick look at the characters, but they introduce the characters as statistical facts. In addition, many of these facts are not important to various characters. (For example, age is only important in establishing that Nathan is the older Petrelli brother and that neither Claire nor Micah are adults.) By using prose, each character has an individualized introduction to draw in readers. For example, which is more attractive to a reader?...

Table version (without photo)

Masi Oka	24^[1]	Programmer^[2]	Tokyo, Japan	Chronokinesis.Can bend the space time continuum, enabling: Teleportation, Time manipulation, and Time travel.

Prose version

Hiro Nakamura, played by Masi Oka, is introduced in the pilot episode as a programmer^[3] for Yamagoto Industries in Tokyo, Japan. An avid fan of comic book and science fiction culture, he is delighted upon learning that he has the ability to bend the space time continuum. Shortly after his discovery he accidentally teleporting himself to New York City five weeks into the future with time travel, he learns that the city will be destroyed from a nuclear explosion. When he returns to the present, he convinces his friend, Ando, to travel with him to the United States on a quest to stop the explosion.

For the reasons of organization, stability, and brilliant prose, let's remove the table format and the additional categories. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

more importantly: also, it's silly to not group at least some of the minor characters in some NPOV. a glaring contribution that could be made is "heroes killed by sylar (for their powers)." if it were set up the same way as the "main characters" table, it would get rid of quite a few of those clogging up the contents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.138.223 (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

It's perfectly fine the way it is. dposse 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

no, no it's not. it's a huge list, and while this is common with all sorts of banal things on wiki such as television and sports, it's not actually a good thing. all of the main characters get their very own page, which is why the main character section is so small, it would be really great if we could spin off at least some of the minor characters in such a way. dead characters, family members, anything as long as there is some concensus here. THIS LIST IS TOO LONG, DENYING THAT DOES NO ONE ANY GOOD.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.52.205 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually, since each major character has their own linked to page, there's no reason to mess with it. ThuranX 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead characters

It might not be a bad idea if the article was divided up into alive and dead character--list those alive at the top, and make another big heading for those who are dead to go under. Think about it, 1/3 to 1/2 of the characters on there are dead, and it won't affect any of the main characters, with the exception of Simone, and who knows what will happen to her now. --Arwen undomiel 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think so. I mean, if a character is dead, then one could just read the character description and check whether the character is dead or not. Doing what you proposed might mix things up. It's fine the way it is now. But, that's just my opinion. Cheers! ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tohru Honda13. It's illogical to divide characters on whether they are alive or not. Major/Minor characters is better. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Story importance is a valid category. I'm still partial to dividing it into 'Volumes', as Kring has described the seasons. We know that peopel like Charles Deveaux will not be back in later seasons, outside of possible, and unlikely, flashbacks. There are other similar characters, like that football player who attacked Claire. In fact, ultimately, that guy was almost completely irrelevant, serving more as a vehicle for introducing the Haitian and the 'somethign weird is going on here' vibe to Claire's storyline. Other characters are likely to be more recurrent, like Ando, Hiro's own Sancho Panza. We could lead with a recurrent minor characters table, and then a Volume One table, or even a subpage. ThuranX 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Subpage? As in one page for major characters and another for minor ones? Other than that question, I do agree with what you said. ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the suggestion for that kind of division. -- Magioladitis 11:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I meant subpages for 'Minor characters of Heroes (Vol. 1)', Minor Characters of Heroes (Vol. 2), et cetera. Kring's made it clear that each season is a new volume, that some, but not all characters will move on from season to season, and so on. For example, at least one of those 'secondary' (non-main cast) powered characters will probably die by the end of the season. They would go into the 'Minor characters of Heroes (Vol. 1)'. Hope and the gaming agent are unlikely to return, they'd go in Vol. 1. Someone like Ando, or Mrs. Bennett, or Nathan's wife, are all more likely to return in future seasons, as they're family to main characters, and not the trials a Hiro faces on his journey, pardon the pun. a Lot of Hiro's incidental characters, even Charlie, aren't likely to return. Eventually, my Ideal version of this page would have: A table of major cast heroes (Which might be changed out for a link tothe main heroes page table, a list of recurrent Minor Heroes, so we can readily expand on them in a prose fashion, and a series of tables which could be 'folded' not unlike the bottom of page templates can, one table per season. I might refine this as we discuss, but I think it could work quite nicely. I think that within those tables, we can probably subdivide the powered to the top, non-powered below, and dead at the bottom. Saying Charles Deveaux's dead would shock no one who'se seen episode one, as the guy states he knows he'sdying, then does. there's no spoiler there. ThuranX 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'Minor characters of Heroes (Vol. 1)', Minor Characters of Heroes (Vol. 2), et cetera sounds quite good, actually. But isn't it too early to create a 'Minor characters of Heroes (Vol. 1) page? How do we know there will be (significant) minor characters in Vol (season) 2? Shouldn't we wait and see? (Which will mean that we're stuck with a long characters page for a long time) —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. We can, at the end of Season One, make some reasonable assessments. However, this may all be moot, as an editor has decided all this discussion meant nothing was getting done, and went ahead and reinstated the tables. Perhaps he'll realize consensus and a plan takes a while to build. ThuranX 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Zane

Was there a valid reason for removing the article on Zane Taylor, or was it merely vandalism? I don't want to change the article back in case there was a valid reason. Can someone get back to me on this? Bio 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the entry. There was no edit summary with the deletion, no explanation here, and it was the only edit by an anon. Given the eveidence, it is reasonable to presume that it was vandalism. Thanks for flagging it. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing and/or Splitting the list of characters

I made a table yesterday for "Other characters with abilities". I think with this way one can more easily read the page. I suggested the table appears again. -- Magioladitis 10:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The table was much better and easier to read. -- Nips 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about this is above. ThuranX and I both believe its unnecessary - I mean, you're basically putting the info that was in paragraphs in a table - whats the point? Besides, the comments column is really big and is not good on the eyes. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is to change. I think that comments must be reduced but I didn't want to be myslef to remove information that other people may consider usefull. So I made the table and then we could make changes. Do you agree at least that we removed all the description for characters having their own pages? -- Magioladitis 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're trying to find useful solutions in the sections above, and it's clear that your table solution isn't going to work out. Let's try to keep moving. No one's insulting your efforts, but it sure seems the majority want a better solution, one which can establish a precedent to use for the next five seasons (thinking optimistically about the show). ThuranX 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We can make another article called List of Heroes minor characters. I noticed that for example a very nice List of Prison Break minor characters exists. -- Magioladitis 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Witherwhatzit

I noticed that this article mentions a character named Dr. Witherson, but in the Niki Sanders article, it mentions her twice (once in a picture caption) as Dr. Witherspoon. I don't know which one it is offhand, but can someone come to a conclusion and fix that? Jaron99 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Meredith Explodes

In the graphic novel "Hell's Angel", Claude claims to Mr. Bennet that Meredith "blew-up" and flamed her entire apartment. It wasn't staged so that she could climb out of a window or something, she left Claire behind and didn't know about her regeneration yet. Should this be noted or are the details too vague to include at this point? I hope Meredith explodes in the series so that we can confirm this! Goroliath

It seems a bit too vague to note. Claude could have been lying. She might have have really blown up. She might have just made a huge fireball to fight Claude and he exaggerated. Who knows, eh? Valaqil 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Angela Petrelli

I just noticed that the text to Angela Petrelli is identical to the text on the "official heroes wiki" on the NBC site. That site only came into existence in the last couple months - did they copy us or did one of us copy them? Someone's breaking copyright... Twinotter 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Simone

Should we take her off? It's seems that she's actually dead.Therequiembellishere 03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because a character is dead doesn't mean we should remove them. Otherwise, this list would be much smaller. She did play a more-or-less vital role in the series when she was alive. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

we should remove her from the main page at least- Red 4/3

I don't think that's appropriate - the article should reflect the series as an overall unit, and not just a "moment in time". On a related note, we should establish some sort of consensus about how to treat characters before Season Two information comes in, given that the producers are suggesting a large cast change is in the works. Otherwise, the pages will never be stable. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

grammar in Linderman's item

It is: "So far, it has been revealed that Linderman is aware of Nathan's, Claire's, and Peter's abilities." If they all owned the same power, then apostrophes wouldn't be needed for Nathan's and Claire's names. And not to be picky but shouldn't it be put in the order that Linderman said the names (he mentioned Nathan, then Peter, then Claire)? Also here is my source. 137.82.96.26 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't all have the same ability, so the apostrophes in this case are acceptable, as far as I am aware. Jacobshaven3 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. 24.83.211.180 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Redesign

Since the discussion here wasn't really getting anywhere, I did a major redesign of the page. Some of you will like it (I hope), and some of you won't. I ask that you at least don't revert it immediately - at least give the new design a chance to get tweaked a bit to see if it can be improved. I didn't remove any characters (if I did accidentally, put them back in, please). That debate can be settled later.
Here are the major changes:

A "Major recurring characters" table - for the purposes of this, I defined "major" as "having a full article about them, and I think that that is a good measure of worthiness - if they're important enough to warrant an article, they deserve to be considered "major".
Organization of the remaining characters be affiliation. Since there is an overlap of many characters, I put them in the category that they're most noted for. Kaito Nakamura, for instance, could go in both the "Friends and family" and "Primatech" paper categories, but at the moment most of his screen time has been exploring his role as Hiro's father, so he goes in Friends and family. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than the list of doom we had before.

Thoughts? --dws90 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

too many groups and subgroups... its needs to be more simple... -Xornok 04:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple would be good if we had fewer characters. It was quite a bit simpler before (one big list), and that was incredibly unwieldy. This, while not perfect, at least gives it a bit more organization. --dws90 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel we were moving too slowly towards consensus in the above discussions. It is exactly this sort of thing that all this consensus and discussion was trying to avoid. Unfortunately, this will probably restart the entire process. I know that I for one still object ot the same multiple table system, esp. tables that do not match. ThuranX 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What's unwieldy about a clean alphabetical list? Subjective categories make it much more difficult to find characters, in my opinion, particularly if someone isn't very familiar with the show.--Trystan 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A Plea, to whomever is in charge of this new design. I don't want to mess with the system - it's a good system - but ANDO is a Major Reocurring Character. Just because he doesn't have any powers - and is technically a sidekick - doesn't mean he doesn't serve a major function. He's as major as Gitleman, and she's only been in one episode. Ando's almost been in as many as the Major Cast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.10.217 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I disaggre with this kind of arrangement. It's confussing. I prefer having a table with people "on the list". I still don't understand why this major edit was not reverted. -- Magioladitis

Well, for starters, the new table looks different to the main character table. Things should be unifrom, shouldn't it? I also agree that is it too early to start redesigning. We have not reached a decision and yet action has been taken. I urge others not to make major edits unless it is something we haev all decided and agreed on. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We can make another article called List of Heroes minor characters. I noticed that for example a very nice List of Prison Break minor characters exists. I disagree with all these subgroups that appear now. -- Magioladitis 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The new table:

The new table, like the one before, doesn't make sense. It doesn't actually list major recurring characters, but 'other characters with Powers'. A table of 'Major recurring characters' would have to include Ando, who has been in what, 15 out of 17 episodes? but he's nowhere. Further, the table is bulky and large, instead of matching the above table, which would contribute to legibility. Sections Talk:List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Reorganizing_and.2For_Splitting_the_list_of_characters and Talk:List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Too_many_other_characters addressed all this already, and we are working towards a plan. Circumventing this in the name of boldness doesn't help when there's ample demonstration of good faith effort towards consensus. ThuranX 04:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hana Gitelman

Her power is Cyberkinesis (the manipulation of electronic devices and electronically stored data) - Please don't change it to wireless data manipulation, because that doesn't cover the scope of her abilities and is not it's technical term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Addison (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, Cyberkinesis is a neologism. An accepted term in fiction would be Cyberpathy/Technopathy. Jacobshaven3 12:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The term Cyberkinesis has been around for a while — I've seen it for at least five years now) as a broad term for the ability to control technology. However, that's more Micah's power than Hana's; I'd stick with Cyberpathy/Technopathy in this case. BobGreenwade 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiro's Dad

Did anyone happen to notice that the license plate on Hiro's Dad's car was NCC-1701? Too funny! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.63.43.83 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, a lot of people noticed that, including the folks at TV Guide. BobGreenwade 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont get it. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 11:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Something to do with Star Trek, I think it was the Enterprises serial number or the like. Jacobshaven3 12:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Muggles

Maybe I'm just an oddball, but shouldn't there be an entry for Mr. Muggles? (Okay, maybe both are true....) I could see deleting his "stub" article, but he does function as a character and mascot for the show. BobGreenwade 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No... he's not much of a character. More like a prop. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. He may not be human, but he is a character. Though possibly just mention him as a tertiary character to Sandra Bennet's entry. Jacobshaven3 12:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Muggles is not a major or minor character in Heroes. In fact, he is quite insignificant. However, a mention should suffice. No entry though. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have a story line nor does he contribute to the advancement of a story. he might as well be a cat. --Kvasir 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. Mr Muggles is an integral part of the storyline, a key supporting character who contributes significantly to the character development of multiple heroes, holds a higher position in the Bennet household than Lyle, has more screen time than a good number of heroes who are prominently placed on the list, and is possibly a hero as well. To remove him from the storyline is like removing Thompson and calling him a wooden plank. 137.99.140.197 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe this is even being discusses. Why don't we create an article for Hiro's sword. It serves that same purpose as the dog.↔NMajdan•talk 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiro's sword displays no sign of life, has not intervened in any conflicts, has no semblance of a genetic code or heritage, and is completely inorganic. Mr Muggles, on the other hand, is very organic and of utmost importance to the plot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.140.197 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Mohinder=taxi driver?

Who keeps listing Mohinder as a taxi driver? Where is this mentioned on the show at all? He's a geneticist.Ianthegecko 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

When he came to New York City the first time, in the first couple of episodes, he worked his father's old cab. Two of his fares on his first day were, in fact, Peter Petrelli and Mr. Bennet.BobGreenwade 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have missed that part. Carry on. :) Ianthegecko 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth mentioning, though. The job was not a major part of Mohinder's life, and listing it in the table gives it more importance than is due. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone and removed it. "Former taxi driver" makes it seem as if he is a taxi driver who became a geneticist. The job was nothing more than an established means of earning some money after arriving in New York. It is most definitely worth detailing in the character article, but in the table, it is out of context. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Construction worker (unemployed), Ex-con" See that? D.L. is almost certainly not a construction worker, in fact his last job was thief. But it is still there. Taxi driver is of consequence because it was his occupation, even if it wasn't his career, and as such it belongs in the OCCUPATION section of the list. If his occupation doesn't belong there then why even have an occupation section? WookMuff 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because he does the job for a short period of time doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion in the "Occupation" section. That column shouldn't be a collection of every single job the characters do or have done. (If Mohinder spoke of his life in India, and described working as a gas jockey, would that be included too?) --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I have wondered why we left "Construction worker" and "Ex-con" in that page. Ex-con is not technically a profession, and he is not working as a construction worker. Perhaps this list should be edited a little more? Valaqil 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Character list

I'd like to propose a cleanup of the character list. Some of the entries are out of context (see the "taxi driver" debate above), while others are kind of "fannish" (i.e. "can bend space and time"). It's probably best to establish some sort of consensus here first, however. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose the images of the second table to be same size as the first. -- Magioladitis 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, to the best of my ability. I'm not very adept at image manipulation, however, so anyone that can produce higher quality cropped versions of the images is more than welcome to do so. --dws90 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been reverted. --dws90 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, sorry, it was just so ugly i had to revert it... i do agree that the images should be the same size, but they need to be cropped, not just smashed down... -Xornok 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did do quite a bit of cropping (possibly too much). The problem is that they larger images we have are quite large, and many of them are just head shots (meaning there's not much to cut out, unless we just want Hana's nose). --dws90 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Encounters Survey

Here is the "Encounters" table, as was presented on the article page (now removed for discussion):

See User:Chochopk/Encounters in Heroes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Delete-I read through the Encounters section, and while interesting and clearly someone was applied much time and effort, I don't see the significance of the table. The listing first encounters seem to be a bit of a trivial matter, recording significant contact (first contact or otherwise) would be better suited from an encylopediac purpose in the texts of each character rather then an elaborate chart. In addition, specifically in episodic mediums such as television drama (and comic books etc) retcons, backstories, and "revelations" make a solid unifying list unfeasible. In short, I think the section should be removed but I thought a survey/discussion would be benificial.66.109.248.114 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revise I can see why Hiro and Niki passing by in Corinthian would be a trivial matter, and "significant" contact would be more important. To address that issue, revising the table would be a much better solution than deletion. I understand this is a big change, which warrens a discussion. This show is unlike most other TV shows, where everyone knows about everyone else pretty much at the beginning. And the encounter is especially important to Peter, and Sylar to some degree. If you make a list, then you would have to list an encounter under 2 people. Maintaining the 2 sets of identical data, intermingled everywhere, seems costly. This table format also give a good visual overview, such as how many pairs have met, how many pairs have met long time ago, etc. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where as the meeting of Peter and Syler in itself was important due to the actions that had taken place place, my argument is that a first meeting has no greater importance than a third or fifth (Nathan and Hiro's relationship for example). As the order of the contact is no more or less significant than any other contact, I feel that the section should be removed. A revision to something like 'significant contacts' while it might be more constructive, would be too subjective to be helpful. Perhaps a timeline though... 66.109.248.114 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A time line is fine. It's a different representation of the same data. This matrix and a time line have different functions, cons, and pros. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the opinions of others. Two people with opposing idea cannot reach a consensus. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)+

I'd say delete the table. What purpose does it serve? Isn't it also original research? dposse 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research. Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research? says that straightforward logical deduction is not original research. If you watch the episodes in the correct sequence, you will get the same thing. How useful is this table? If you watch this show, do you not often wonder "have these two people met. If so when?". This table gives a quick reference to that question. It also give a visual overview as to how many pairs have met, and how many have not. In most other TV shows, everyone knows about everyone else. This is not the case for Heroes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this table - No one has answered the question "What is the purpose of this table?" with a very good answer. I'm sorry to whoever made this time, I can tell a lot of time and effort was put into the production of this. But really, does it matter who met who and when? This is all trivial, isn't it? Does an encyclopedia entry need something like this? I don't see Lost with a table like this. [Not that I should be mentioning Lost here] This is information that is not significant to the show. —₊₊ hippi ippi ⁺⁺ 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete the table. It's nice that the table references when characters have met, but it is trivial, not to mention a bit confusing. Arwen undomiel 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this is not well received, I moved the table to my user space. I will continue updating if I have the chance. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

THE COMPANY V. Primatech

In quite a few entries and articles, for Thompson, Primatech and others, there is little distiction between Primatech (the front company who Mr. Bennet is employed by and poses as his legit job) and "the Company" (the covert organization who monitors, regulates and control the "special people." I feel there should be a greater disticintion made between the two. Currently, the only confirmed employ of both Primatech and "the Company" is Bennett, others are listed as members of Primatech, but there is no evidence on screen or otherwise that they are paper company employees (Eden, The Haitian, Thompson). The same argument would say everyone who works for Air America also works for the CIA, and vice versa. Front organizations do not equal their parent group. I feel as editors we need to start to make a distiction between the members of Primatech (whom Bennett is the only confirmed member) and it's parent organization (whom Thompson, Kaito, Eden, the Haitian, Claude (formerly), Hank and Lisa are members). The same could also be said for the above ground building and its lower levels, as well. 66.109.248.114 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I've made a similar request on the Wikiproject page here. Maybe we can all reach a consensus. Windmillninja 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Molly Walker

Molly has a power. Why? Sylar hunted her down at the police station to acquire it. I'm struggling to think of another circumstance for why Sylar would go out of his way to hunt down a powerless child. BobGreenwade, I'm not here to argue, but it's really a one-plus-one situation. Goroliath

You've just illustrated exactly why we need the "if any" - because we are the ones doing the math, and that makes it "original research". In order for it to be verifiable, someone else - a reputable source such as the show's creators - would have to state that Sylar was pursuing her to get her powers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, I can't see how this can be claimed as any form of research if I haven't made a deliberate decision on one of two or more possibilities; the one and only is that Sylar wanted her power. It's common sense, but I know how that's a difficult thing to work with around here. If the question were ever asked to a creator of the show, we'd probably only get something like "you'll find out" or "he went after her to finish a game of tag", and a gag answer like the latter would only prove that a game of tag can be ruled out. Sorry for the bother with this, anyway. Goroliath

I originally thought that that was common sense too, but the more I think about it the more I can see Ckatz's point of view. Even though Molly having powers is the most sensible reason, Sylar has knowingly killed at least three unpowered people (or at least three people who kept their brains) Chandra, Molly's mother, and Hank. As well as this, he was seemingly content to kill Mrs Bennet. Molly's mother may have just been to get to Molly's father, as Mrs Bennet was to get to Claire and get back at Mr Bennet, however Chandra was a burnt bridge to Sylar, as well as a loose end. Perhaps Molly saw/knew something that Sylar didn't want her to tell? WookMuff 05:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I am putting that theory forward, just saying that its almost as likely. WookMuff 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great theory. Molly could have seen his face then managed to hide herself from him, a lead which would've meant everything to the FBI. Thanks for clearing things up with that, "if any" should stay. Goroliath

Glad to have helped... why do you sign your name like that? Did you forget your password? WookMuff 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this was exactly my thinking as well: Sylar was mostly likely after Molly because she was a witness who could identify him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BobGreenwade (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

WookMuff; no, can't be bothered signing in. Lazy

Yes, it is SUCH an ordeal! Whenever my puter signs me out for unknown reasons, I get really annoyed even though it takes like five seconds to log back in :) WookMuff 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but you guys are getting off topic. — hippi ippi₊₊⁺⁺ 10:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation

It's been officially proven, Molly Walker has a power. If you've known about the latest entry of Hiro's Blog and e-mailed kaiton@primatechpaper.com, you would've read from the reply:

"As you know we are in desperate times. I've finally found Molly Walker. I will find others. I seek assistance from you and your partner to provide a safe harbor."

The future Hiro has evidently attempted to contact Hana, informing her of his plans to rally the remaining heroes. Molly is the first. Goroliath

That doesn't "confirm" anything other than an interest in Molly. You'll need to find something more conclusive. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Urm, is there any other reason that Hiro from the future would want to protect Molly Walker? Especially since Hiro says he's looking for others. You have given no reason why the citation isn't conclusive enough, why isn't it? Jacobshaven3 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There may or may not be other reasons - the fact that we need to ask the question proves that there is no definitive conclusion. Is the "blog" canon? Will the events ever transpire on-screen? There are far too many uncertainties to treat this vague statement as proof of a "power". (I really don't care if she has a power or not - but there's nothing to prove either position right now.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I concede my comment, the source isn't conclusive enough. However, just so you know, The blog, as well as Claire's myspace page and all of the "Alternate Reality" sites involved in Heroes 360, are all Canon, and there for the viewer to get extra information. Jacobshaven3 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In a recent preview for 'Five Years Past' Hiro mentions three people to HRG who he brought to him for protection due to their powers; DL Hawkins, Molly Walker, and Candice (presumabley the same Candice who has recently been introduced). Either way, this will be concluded tomorrow, when the episode airs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.116.207 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The latest preview mentions the "Walker tracking system". Is this her power, the ability to track others with special powers?

Actually it sounds like her power is simply to track anybody. She said simply "just tell me their name and I can tell you where they are." Padillah 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ando Masahashi

Why Ando Masahashi is not listed? He is in nearly every episode of Heroes --Have a nice day. Running 14:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He is listed under recurring characters. Arwen undomiel 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're wondering why Ando isn't a "main" character, we are going by the cast page list on NBC.com. Ando is listed as a recurring character and not part of the main cast. dposse 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler for Mr. Linderman

Should there be a spoiler tag for Mr. Linderman? As there is one at the very beginning of the page, it seems a bit redundant. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tcpe k i n 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say keep the spoilers tag, because the section does comment on things that haven't aired yet. The casual reader might expect the spoiler warning at the top of the page to mean that it says what has happened on the show so far, and therefore get some unwanted spoilers. The tag certainly doesn't hurt anything. Also regarding the Linderman section, however, is the comment that Linderman is Austin from the new comic. Is this confirmed anywhere? I agree that it seems like a likely prospect, but it seems like speculation to me. --dws90 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment about Linderman being Austin is speculation and has been removed. The spoiler tag would be redundant and thus unneccessary. We don't need to go putting spoiler tags all willy nilly. If the casual reader doesn't want spoilers, they shouldn't read the page as there is a spoiler tag there. PureSoldier 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't notice the spoiler tag, but I read info on the preview of .07% and deduced Dallas (from the Heroes comics) is Linderman. Heck, I came here looking info on Candence. User:ViccoLizcano 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)} (dumbass, I didn't sign)

Austin is Linderman. At the end of the Lone Star File, Austin and Dallas revealed their identities to one another. Dallas was Petrelli.

Mohinder's powers

I thought Mohinder had powers, havn't we been told that he's on "the list", and I thought he did something to sylar in the "Parasite" episode, although some might think it was something in the chai tea. Paul nz 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He said as much about the tea, I believe that he admitted to dosing it with Nightshade or somesuch. Anyway, Mohinder is, to the best of my recollection, not on the list BUT perhaps if he was his father would have erased him. Perhaps he will turn up on the new improved list generated by his new Sylar formula. WookMuff 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Mohinder's sister had a genetic abnormality (which I'm guessing means she had a power), it's definitely possible Mohinder has a power, but there is currently no evidence that he does. Jacobshaven3 09:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mohinder clearly explained that he's tainted the tea with a drug, not used any sort of power. He's not on the list, either. It's possible he MIGHT be on the list because of the above mentioned familial connections, but it's yet to be shown or mentioned in any way, and currently constitutes fan spec. ThuranX 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I got confused when watching ep12 "Godsend", when Mr. Bennet asks Mohinder if he's on the list. Paul nz 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, if Mohinder did have a power, it's logical to assume Sylar would have noticed, and would have killed Mohinder when Mohinder had lost his use, rather than torture him and stick him to the ceiling. Jacobshaven3 01:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He wanted the list first, so he could memiorize it and then finish off Mohidur second- Red 4/3

in any case, should his powers be listed as be 'unconfirmed', or a simple no?Dyna Dude 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a simple no. Jacobshaven3 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it said no for him from some interview but whoever put "Holds Doors Closed" for his superpowers in reference to Five year gone was pretty funny I thought. It's a shame this has to be accurate. :)149.159.41.79 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the Dead

There seems to be some disagreement over how exactly to note which characters in the tables are dead. Some people have been putting it in the occupation column, while others have noted it in the age column. Since we already have two dead people in those tables (Eden and Simone), and we are very likely to get a few more once the show starts up again, we should try to reach an agreement on how to note who's dead and who isn't. My recommendation is that we add a "Status" column to both tables, and each character will be noted as either "Active" or "Deceased". That way, it separates their status from the rest of the information, and leaves room to easily add another option should the writers do something really weird that takes a character off the show temporarily without killing them. Thoughts? --dws90 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean like a character being removed from the current storyline by getting lost in time? ;) This sounds like a good idea. I would either suggest a status column or listing it after their age. Occupation simply makes no sense. How does "Dead" relate to their previous occupation(s)? Valaqil 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "status" column too--its the most logical solution if we can't break the entire page up into dead and alive characters (grrr), but I'm really not complaining anymore. Truly :) Arwen undomiel 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've added it. --dws90 04:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better than the "alive and dead" break-up. Thanks for suggesting this. Tohru Honda13 04:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with putting a status section on this article. It seems totally unnecessary and irrelevant. I mean, Simone and Eden were not dead during the first ten episodes or so of the first season. Putting their status should stay in their own articles and not on the list. dposse 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed relevant, since the article is meant to reflect the current information of the various characters. The death of a character has a major effect on their importance on the show, and there needs to be a way to indicate to the reader that a specific character is no longer an active player in the events. Just because they weren't always dead isn't relevant at all - that's like saying that since the events that happened in the 13th episode hadn't happened in the first, nothing that happened in the 13th episode should be included. That's just silly. At any rate, since there seems to be more people in favor of the column than against it, I will put it back in in a few hours if nobody else steps up that's against it. --dws90 02:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dposse, to a point. I believe it's relavent, but should only be added to the character's page. It's not neccessary to add it to the character list page. PureSoldier 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. This information is covered in the individual articles, but is not needed here. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So, being dead isn't a big deal? I think being dead is probably a fairly important fact about each character, at least as important as their age and occupation, and deserves a quick mention. WookMuff 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's entirely inaccurate to state that they are dead on this page. My reasoning is that this page is used to list each character and give a brief description of who they are and what they can do as we see them in the series. Their death didn't happen until later in the series, so putting infomation about their status should stay in their own character articles. Do you see what i'm trying to say? dposse 13:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I just happen to disagree completely. As mentioned above, you cannot expect the page to live in a vacuum. Otherwise Mr. Bennet and Matt wouldn't be main characters yet, and none of the characters would have summaries that included anything more than ep 1. This isn't a list of the characters of heroes as they appear in episode one, nor is it a list of the characters of heroes only in so far as is accurate "from woah to go". This is quite simply a list of the characters of heroes and as such should be accurate and up to date. Death is a very large part of life and for a character, death is generally the last word in so far as making a statement goes. WookMuff 13:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

dwa90 and WookMuff have given a good argument. If being dead or alive isn't the most important thing of a character, then I can't imagine what attribute is more important. To satisfy dposse and PureSoldier, what about "dead since episode xyz"? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me just add that I don't believe the info should be in the main heroes article, but I certainly think that any pertinant information about the characters of heroes belongs in this article. WookMuff 12:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to quote another editor, "The infomation about Simone's death is not needed here because it's an unnecessary spoiler which deserves to stay on that character's own page."208.191.55.119 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just silly. There's already a spoiler warning at the top of the page, and the blurbs for the minor characters are nothing but spoilers (not to mention the power column in the tables themselves, which are just as much of a spoiler). Since the page is already full of spoilers, we shouldn't hold anything back merely for being a spoiler - if someone doesn't want to read spoilers, they shouldn't be looking at the page in the first place. As for the unnecessary part, that's the topic of this debate. Personally, I feel it's quite necessary. --dws90 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I like ChoChoPK's suggestion, with a minor revision: "Dies in episode xyz". I think it's important to remember that just as the page shouldn't be tied to what was known as of the first episode, it also shouldn't treat the events of aired episodes as something that occurred in the past.--Trystan 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the column as per the compromise ChocChoPH suggested. --dws90 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Claude's Picture

Is there any chance that we can find a new pic for Claude on this page? It's so dark.... Valaqil 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Linderman's Powers in next episode (spoiler?)

On Myspace they had a Sneak Peak of the next episode, for people who are friends with the NBC HEROES myspace. In it it shows that one of Linderman's powers is to heal things, or perhaps to restore youth (he waves his hand on a dead plant and the stalk perks up and the flowers regain color). How so before something like this is allowed to be added? 70.247.84.54 06:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)OUChevelleSS

It's been added a while back. PureSoldier 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Character articles

I read the article about Hiro Nakamura and Peter Petrelli. I haven't read the others, but I feel they will have the same point I'd like to discuss. These articles should talk about the characters, period. From what I've read, they describe the entire friggin' show. My point of view is, for example, that Peter's "Character History" section should almost be completely removed because it doesn't say much about Peter himself, but rather describe what happens in episodes. We already have episode pages for that.

Does that mean that after every new show, about 10 pages will need to be updated to describe in detail what that specific character did in the episode? That's silly! -- Lyverbe 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Dallas" Petrelli

Shoulndn't we add a spot about Mr. Petrelli, like him working with Linderman in the new Graphic novel and his death and stuff like that?- RREDD13 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, most likely the relation between Mr. Petrelli and Linderman will become very important in the show. It should probably contain his actions in the war, his secret motives(that were blacked out in the graphic novel), and the "lawsuit" about Lindemna. I'd do it myself but we should probably get more input and I don't remember many details about him from the show. User:BioYu-Gi! 6:32 p.m., 11 April 2007

What the crap? I was surprised to realize that he doesn't even have an entry yet!

http://heroeswiki.com/Mr._Petrelli

There's a good information source, BioYu-Gi!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.189.95 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Candice/Candace

Peregrym's character was originally listed as "Candice" and I thought that was the correct spelling. anon user 72.16.117.34 has changed the spelling to "Candace" twice now, and I've changed it back both times. My latest edit was undone by PureSoldier (mistakenly?), even though "Candice" was seemingly long-standing consensus. --Pentasyllabic 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for my revert was the sources used for your revert. However, if someone has access to the end credits from a taping or DVR of one of the epidodes she was in, we can clear this up. PureSoldier 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Until new evidence can be provided, though, it would make sense to go with "Candice". Questionable sources outweigh no sources at all.--Trystan 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a citation, and changed it back to "Candice".PureSoldier 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian and Kelly

Should there be an article for Brain and Kelly, the people workin on Linderman's "logic bomb". It's improbable they'll appear on the show but they are somewhat important. If they are added, they'd go under The Linderman group. User:BioYu-Gi! April 17,2007. 7:28 p.m.

Should probably only mentioned under Linderman's heading, not enough information to substantiate their own heading. PureSoldier 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Linderman

Shouldn't we put Primatic Paper emploese with Linder amns group- RREDD13 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, though I can certainly see the logic behind it. The men (and women) working for Mr. Linderman seem more like goons he sends out to do his dirty work. The people working for Primatech focus more on catching heroes. I think they are all connected with Mr. Linderman, but they have completely different work fields and aren't too related. Arwen undomiel 00:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A (loose) comparison would be to the military. The Army and the Navy both answer to the President, but both serve a very different function and wouldn't be lumped together. Being both under the control of Linderman doesn't make them the same. --dws90 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Linderman has become a recurring character, I'm going to move his info into his own page.--M m hawk 02:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

multiple timelines/universes and status of characters.

On one of the Directors blog posts, he mentions that "Just remember in our universe multiple timelines and universes are a very possible phenomenon." Now, the next episode "Five years gone" is supposed to be "what happens if they fail". Also, a piece of infomation from the Heroes 360 experience which you can see at charliea@primatechpaper.com states that Hiro is planning to go back in time to October 4, 2006 to change the events of what happened in the future, which will create a different timeline. And since one of the writers stated that the 360 experience provides real spoilers[2] for the show, the message in the email is completely canon.

With all that in mind, what are we to do when we get multiple timelines and universes within the storyline, like Stargate SG1 or Star Trek, with regards to the "status" of the characters? Are we going to say "deceased since (episode), but alive in seperate (or new) timeline"?

I know that all this is too new for anyone to know and possibly speculation, but i just wanted to point out a potental flaw in the current system here on this article in which we report a character's status. dposse 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that we should probably wait and see if PERSISTENT alternate versions actually occur, but could probably summarize it in the tables with 'Deceased*' where the * is noted as *'but alternate versions exist, see individual articles' and let it stand in that manner. If multiple persistent versions appear, we could use sub- or super-script numbers to represent the variant timelines. I make special note of the word 'PERSISTENT', because as currently represented, episode 20 is a world where the heroes fail, and I think we all expect that the heroes will succeed in stopping the explosion. When they succeed, that timeline will cease to be, as will those alternates. The 'future Hiro' is actually a single persistent version of the character, who has 'jumped' timelines before, and is conscious that the exploding man is no longer Sylar but now Peter, as per the most recent comic, #30. As for the 'future' versions of other characters (not named so as not to be a spoilerish dick), it seems that they are only going to be seen in the one episode, and not be recurrent versions. Hiro is the only one capable of creating/sustaining such characters (only he can go forward and meet them, or bring them along with him, as he did to Ando), so we'll see them all in context to him. If we only see them the once, before the future changes, then noting them in their own pages would be the best, and save chart notations for persistent versions. If the 'future Hiro' returns after this season, and we see the other 'future characters' then, that's worth noting in their pages, and if they've died in the 'main timeline', but persist there in the 'future', we know an event in the past has changed, and that's certainly worth noting in multiple places, the 'point of divergence'. Too much more of this and we'll be intot he metaphysics of time travel... and this writers versions thereof could significantly differ from ours as fans. To summarize - dead but living alternates, note on table, explain on their pages. Living with alternates? On their pages only, unless we need to add the second version to the main page, like if Future Hiro goes evil next season, we might need hiro VS. evil hiro... and Future Hiro already HAS the facial hair, LOL. ThuranX 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Ok, i guess i can agree with that. I just wanted to bring this point up, since it's a popular theme within science fiction. dposse 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Former Main Characters

Shouldn't we move the likes of Isaac and Simone into some sort of "Former Main Characters" section. I mean, they are dead. Sure it's possible for them to eventually come back, but that bridge can be crossed when we come to it. What do you all think? --Harlequin212121 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No i don't think that's necessary or logical. They were main characters during most of season 1. I believe that there is already a plan in place to seperate characters into seasons, as in "season 1 characters" and "season 2 characters", ect. dposse 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Dekker on Zach

I just wished to point out that apparently Thomas Dekker spoke out about his character's controversy and has stated Zach was never gay, as in the original script he was straight and actually in love with Claire. I'm unsure how to place this in, so I decided to post it here, as it's pretty important in regard to his character. Here's the article: http://www.heroes-tv.com/modules/news/article-925.html Navex 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Formerly in Archive 6

Syler to main characters

I think it is time to move Syler to the main characters list. He and Peter are the central characters of the season 1 arc. I would be bold and do it myself but I'd mess up the chart68.36.197.244 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between "Main Characters" and "Recurring Characters" isn't anything we're responsible for. Those titles are assigned by the producers of the show, and therefore we only list the main characters as those the producers consider main characters on their website and pay scale. If it were up to most of the people here, Sylar would have been a main character a long time ago, but it's not, so he isn't. --dws90 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline Plothole - not a plothole

The section for Charlie indicated that it was a plothole that she didn't recognize Hiro when he first "met" her along with Ando. It's not a plothole.

Heroes primarily follows Hiro's journey *through* time (jumping back or forward with him), and Hiro's ability means that his timeline, and thus the show's, can be considered a seperate entity from the static timeline that the other characters experience.

To explain it in another way, the static timeline is a rope comprised of several intertwining strings, extending in both directions; past and future. Hiro's string is part of this straight path, but is able to break away, double back, or jump ahead at key points. The show follows this string, meaning that even though the static timeline is technically unchanged, we can see the events as they originally played out before Hiro's changes effected it.

This is more or less confirmed by the fact that Hiro, Ando, and Future Hiro are able to remember, recognize, and discern differences in the static timeline based on their own choices upon returning to their proper place in the static timeline, despite the fact that the rest of those in the timeline would never be aware that things were changed.

When Hiro went back to try and save Charlie, the Ando (for some reason) noticed the timeline changing. Hiro then later returned to the timeline he left from. This creates a problem, since everyone would have recognized Hiro when he first got to the restaurant (yet nothing in the timeline changed). Ophois 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Decesed characters in Heroes

I've redirected List of Decesed characters in Heroes (sic) to this page, as it contains no information that isn't present on this page. --Pentasyllabic 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylar's Victim List

The Sylar's victim list is pointless and redundant. Characters from the list can be put elsewhere, so that you don't have repeat names of character (i.e. eden & isaac). Furthermore, Sylar is not even a main character, he is likely to die off and not return for the second season, so why does he have his own subdivision? Moreover, categorizing by not only dead, but victim of a specific killer creates a precedent for so much subdividing and classifying, that it potentially could become so encumbered with future changes and villian additions that the page is inexhaustibly painful to decipher and read. Which defeats the purpose of wikipedia. My real point is just that the section should be remove...

The actor did sign for next season, it was reported a few weeks back. As such, it's likely Sylar will be back. When the season's over, we can revise his summary here, and include the victom list on his page. ThuranX 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This simply begs the question - Why isn't this list on Sylar's page being maintained there? It has no business being called out here. This is a simple list of characters, no subdivision beyond "Main", "Recurring", and "Peripheral" needs to be made. I am going to move it, it does not belong here. Padillah 11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Victim's list is not pointless to someone not familiar with the series! This is good information for new viewers to catch up with the series. AND, as shown in one of the episodes taking place 5 years in the future, it was revealed that Nathan Petrelli was in fact Sylar after obtaining the illusion power -- so he might not be dead at the end of the season! Firstlensman 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is useful, but the complete list belongs on Sylar's page, not here. This article is a list of characters; the categories were introduced merely to organize them. The duplicate entries should be removed.--Trystan 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this shows that this kind of categorisation is confusing. -- Magioladitis 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. The list belongs on Sylar's page, with a suitable link on this page. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since some of the characters on this page's list are only on the show to be Sylar's victims, I think that the list should remain but remove the main/recurring characters. The list should be renamed "Sylar's Other Victims", or something like that to denote that he has victims other than those on this page's list. Ophois 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dump the duplicates, and link the section to the list on the Sylar page. Leave the character summaries for the none main/recurring characters. --dws90 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed "Sylar's victims". Ophois 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to come up with a more neutral heading than the current "Sylar's lesser-known victims"? --Pentasyllabic 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about just "Sylar's victims"? The first sentence in that section could be expanded to "Only minor characters not already listed elsewhere on this page are included here. See Sylar for a full list of his victims."--Trystan 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

None known

I've reversed some editing in this regard and rather than get into an editing war I figured I'd bring it up for discussion. I prefer the term "None known" for characters that are not known to have powers. Untill the test that is shown in "Five Years Gone" is developed and used there is no guarantee that a person doesn't have powers, simply that they have not discovered them or we have not witnessed their use. There's rumor that Simone and her father had powers, that Mrs. Petrelli has a power, and so much more... To assert that Mohinder has "None" means you know, beyond doubt, that Mohinder has no powers what-so-ever. That can't be known until something akin to the test we saw in "Five Years Gone" shows up.

I vote for "None known".

Padillah 12:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is being excessively pedantic, in my opinion. Remember that articles can be edited after the fact, and therefore we don't need to include "just in case" clauses to compensate for every plot twist. There are some characters that are presented as not having powers (Mohinder, Bennet, etc.). While it's possible that they'll have powers pop up eventually, there's nothing on the show to indicate that that will happen. If it does, we can simply change the page, but until then, "None" is acceptable. It's possible that the producers will suddenly declare that Claire's name is really Lulu Pancho, but that doesn't mean we should remove the name "Claire Bennet" from the table - that's just silly. Summary: "None" is fine. --dws90 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and that is the kind of outlook I'm trying to satiate. I keep editing Mrs. Petrelli because somebody heard that someone said that she might have a power. So it keeps getting listed as "Unknown", wich means she does have a power but we don't know what it is. If you ask me this is speculation. Until she demonstrates a power on the show or a creator/writer says she has a power any allusion to her having a power is speculation. In defference to that type of situation, one where the opposing party just has to see something next to Mrs. Petrelli or they can't sleep well that night, I submit "None Known". The rest was a premature deffense. Padillah 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I just remembered the other example of someone that keeps insisting Simone has a power just because they heard some E! Online gossip columnist say so. Gossip is not canon. So that's why I thought about "None Known" - to keep down the edit wars. Padillah 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "None" is fine, but "None known" is better. Revealing that previously introduced characters actually have powers is something that is continually hinted at, so it remains an open possibility. There's no reason to make a definitive statement about something left deliberately ambiguous by the show.--Trystan 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The source of the Angela Patrelli rumor is herself - she implies that she has a power in .07%. --dws90 21:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Angela hints that she may have a power, but this is not confirmed. For now, saying she has a power, though extremely likely, is speculation. On another note, I like the idea of saying "none known" instead of "none" when describing characters' powers. It is sensible and leaves room for the fact that some of the characters, though we don't know it at the moment, may very well have powers--Angela Petrelli, for example. Arwen undomiel 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the change then.--Trystan 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the change. It's quite simple. 99.999999% of the heroes universe has NO powers. That one or two people seen in the show MIGHT have powers doesn't abrogate the simple negative for the rest. It's quite simple. If they have no powers, they have no powers. Hints that they might have a power aren't enough. Further, we've been through this twice before. Please check the archives. Thank you. (Edit: relevant section: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Heroes/Archive_2#None_vs._None_Known) ThuranX 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware it had been discussed before, but everything can be revisited, and the majority in the above discussion seemed to feel that the change should be made. The strong implication that Angela Petrelli does in deed have a power after all, whereas the article previously and almost certainly incorrectly listed her as having none, seemed like a strong impetus to revisit the issue.

Most people in the show's universe might not have abilities, but the odds of prominent characters having powers are pretty good. Stating a month ago, for example, that Angela Petrelli had no powers would have been almost certainly been incorrect. It would have been true to say that she had no known powers. Why go with the former, incorrect statement, when the latter is correct regardless of future revelations? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.--Trystan 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see completely where the "none known" people are coming from. It will stop random editors from changing from "none" to "unknown", which seems to happen. Both "none" and "unknown" preclude the other from being a possibility. but "none known" leaves both options open. For stability and consistency of the articles, my suggestion is to use "none known". Even if there are hints of powers in future episodes, "none known" will still be correct until there is definitive information one way or the other. -- Chuq (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Our job is NOT to make it 'easy to avoid editing by new readers', our job is to reflect the facts. Until a character HAS powers, they don't. It's really that simple. Without confirmation, no character has a power. We've gone through this before. Mohinder has no powers. Mr. Bennet has NO powers. It really is that simple. None Known is a copout, and the implication that they MIGHT have one is OR. The archived discussion went through this once, nothing has actually changed in the facts of the matter. That some new editors prefer to placate a potential group of editors who might do something someday isn't how we work. ThuranX 00:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe how we work is by consensus, and while we don't all seem to agree here, the majority of editors who have contributed to this discussion favor "None known." I still fail to understand your position. Saying that a character has no powers is making a definitive, OR, unsourced, and quite possibly false statement about that character. Saying that we don't know if they have a power or not makes no claim at all, other than stating our ignorance of the matter, which is the only appropriate position for us to take since we have no evidence either way.

An alternative would be to leave the column with "None," and change the heading to "Known Superpowers". That avoids grey areas like Angela Petrelli's current status.--Trystan 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "Known Superpowers" idea sounds really good. That gets my vote. --dws90 02:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's try that then, if there are no objections.--Trystan 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice compromise. But we'd have to change every page and the character info boxes. Not impossible but a lot more work and a lot more far reaching. I'm not sure that wouldn't affect character pages other than Heros. We'd need to check. Padillah 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The info boxes on character pages don't use the same terminology anyway, and I don't think that's really a problem. Characters which aren't shown to have powers simply omit the "abilities" line anyway, which works well.--Trystan 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) Given that the page is unstable due to the "known" problem, I've tried something different. Mrs. Petrelli's listing says "Has indicated she has powers (none revealed)". Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which, apparently, ThuranX doesn't approve of - so it's gone. (It wasn't OR, by the way - just an attempt to stop endless page reverts.) Guess we'll just have to keep dealing with anons and "unknown"s... --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I refverted it because no matter HOW you phrase it, she doesn't have powers. She hasn't said she does. She hasn't demonstrated them. No one else has stated she has them. It's all inferences made by the audience, and possibly, implication. I personally beleive, like many, that she's probably a Precog. It makes sense that they writers would bring in one when they lose another, so that someone can announce the future has changed, ending the story arc. But that hasn't happened. When someone says she has powers, in it goes. UNtil then, the None under Known Powers is the best we can do. ThuranX 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "None" is preferable, regardless of the persistence of the anons who keep changing it without discussion. The show does a lot of hinting and teasing as to who does and does not have powers. It isn't practical to include all of that information in a chart, which is why the column is a clear cut "Known Powers".--Trystan 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would keep the "None Known" for now UNTIL she does reveal her power. It has already been stated in an article that one of next season's story arcs is called "Generations" where the older characters reveal their powers. Firstlensman 16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Name

Does anyone else have a problem with the page name being "Molly_Walker"? It seems to me it should be "List_of_characters_in_Heroes", but it's not. Is there any way to change it? If Molly gets any more important she may deserve her own page, and then we're stuck. Padillah 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is called List_of_characters_in_Heroes, though if you use the "Molly Walker" redirect, because of how redirects work it appears to be Molly_Walker#Molly_Walker. Jacobshaven3 10:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thompson

Should the final line for Thompson be removed? It wasn't in the preview shown immediately after the last episode, and I think it gives away too much, especially since it may be his death.

"In a trailer for Landslide, Thompson is seen pointing a gun at Matt Parkman's head, but Mr. Bennet then appears and shoots him in the back of the head."

Also, according to Eric Roberts (the actor who plays him), Thompson has the ability to know who has powers. I don't know if that can somehow be incorporated into his article.

"I'm proud as an actor to say that I recruit the heroes. I'm obviously #2 under Malcolm, but I'm one of the honchos, and I have this ability to know who has powers," Roberts reveals "If you can't have the powers, at least know who does, so you're on the right team, you know." (http://herosite.net/hayden-eric-roberts.htm)

Ophois 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've tried to establish that the show itself and the graphic novels are canon. Interviews can be used to clarify issues but not unless/until they were brought out in the show. Writers have changed their minds often enough already. Padillah 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DL = Dead?

I think we should keep D.L. as active until he is confirmed dead. He's in the previews for the finale and even if it does appear he might die next week, we should still keep him active until he's officially eliminated from the show - Rebby 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And remember, in the future he was killed by Sylar, and since Hiro hasn't seemed to have interefered in their timeline, D.L. should survive at least the gunshot. Ophois 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For the same reasons. -- Magioladitis 08:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Should D.L.'s status be changed to Active? According to Niki in the latest comic, he's going to be fine. Ophois 05:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe we should, yea. -- Rebby 09:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hana Gitelman = Dead?

The comic has made absolutely no doubt about it. Hana Gitelman will die in the next comic based on the title alone.

Taiki 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that the title is merely figurative, but I agree it's quite probable that she will. I would object to us changing her status, though, until her death actually occurs in a published work.--Trystan 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That being the title in no way means that she will die. It may be a ploy like in Doctor Who's second season finale, in which a character says she will die in the episode, but ends up only thought to be dead by everyone else. Since Hana is supposed to take out the tracking satellite, her "death" may be in the eyes of The Company. Ophois 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is on the verge of OR, but since she was present in the future, I'm sure she'll survive the next comic. PureSoldier 00:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true. If her body is dead, as the latest comic suggests, then the writers made a really big mistake. Hiro never interfered with her timeline after "Five Years Gone", so she should be alive. Ophois 03:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Although, it's not outside the realm that she may, at some later point, be able to reclaim or reconstruct her body. It's a relatively common occurrence in comics. --Scorp Stanton 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Former Recurring Characters

If we're going to have a former main characters section, can someone split the Recurring table to do the same as main characters? I can't do it myself, but it would be best for the sake of organization if someone could split it so it's identical. Rebby 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fate of Petrellis?

Should Nathan's status also be changed to Unknown, since he isn't stated to have died and could have easily escaped the blast? Also, should we change Peter to Active, since it's pretty much known that he will survive? Ophois 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathen seems to have definitly died, but since it was never expressly stated, I think "unkown" should be used untill that time. And, Peter is almost guarenteed alive, since he has Claire's power. Syler shouldlso be changed to active, unless someone else draged his body into the sewers (not likely).--68.192.188.142 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I read this a few days ago on E! Online that pretty much confirms Nathan's survival: "Four Characters End the Season "in Peril": This is what the cast told me today, and I think "peril" is code for "may or may not be coming back next season." The good news? I can assure you that Hayden, Milo, Adrian and Ali will all be back for sure next season. I personally think D.L. (duh), Matt (shown injured in the preview) and Ando are most at risk. (Micah and Molly are of course safe, 'cause you can't kill kids on television!) Source: Kristin on E!Online" DVD Smith 09:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New Category

Should we have a new category that includes all known members of the previous generation of Heroes?Lyle A. Ruggles 02:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

James Walker

The information in the article describing James Walker says that it's unknown what powers he had, but I thought it was pretty much suggested that he had the ice-creation ability, considering no other Sylar victims have been found, and they haven't come up with any other way to explain how he got the ability. So... thoughts? Kaoskastle 04:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was stated that Sylar had victims before killing the Walkers. Besides, the position that James Walker's body was in suggests that he was frozen before being killed. My guess is that he had the ability that Sylar now uses to make quick escapes, so Sylar had to freeze him in order to be able to kill him. Ophois 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Sylar taking James Walker's brain doesn't necessarilly mean he had a power. It could have been that Sylar merely believed, based on the list he was using, that James Walker had a power. Sylar nearly made a similar error when he started cutting off the skull of Claire's cheerleader friend, thinking Claire's friend was the one with special abilities. Had he not actually seen Claire regenerating he most likely would have completed dissecting the other girl's brain. Dugwiki 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you guys are right. Well, uh, forget I said anything, then. :P Kaoskastle 00:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't use Sylar's killing of Jackie as evidence that James might not have a power. James was on the list, Jackie wasn't. Claire's name was, but Sylar didn't seem to know it, which could be the result of Eden being ordered to remove Claire's name from it or he could have just forgot it on his own and only remembered that there was one in Odessa.AWarriorStill 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, James was on the list, he brain was stolen by Sylar and his daughter has a power. 69.209.223.33 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From what we have seen so far the "mutation" is hereditary and the show has pretty much stated that the condition has to do with genetics. There are many examples of both the parents and the child having special power. Chances are James Walker and/or his wife had a power. --Kvasir 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Angela Petrelli Powers

Persuasion listed as Angela Peterlli's power. At one point, as she is trying to convince Nathan to follow thorugh with her/Linderman's/Whoever's plan, her voice clearly has the same intonation as Eden's when Eden is using her power. It was only for a couple of words, but it was clearly there. I'll try to find a better reference later. BBC 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

By "a better reference", I guess you mean "any reference". Speaking in a convincing manner isn't really a superpower. (Unless they are going to be in this show!) -- Chuq (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have an exact point. She is not just being convincing, but there are two or three words that have the same distortion that Eden's voice has when using her powers. Damn this whole day job thing... :)BBC 13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is described in an official source, or indisputably demonstrated on screen, it should not be added. Please don't add without a valid reference. -- Chuq (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Angela hasn't shown any in the show yet. So the entry must be "none" -- Magioladitis 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At about 37 minutes into "How to Stop an Exploding Man", immediately after Claire jumps out of the window to escape Angela and Nathan, Angela tells Nathan, "Let her go" with exactly the same intonation that Eden used when using her powers. On this basis, Persuasion should be listed in Powers for Angela. BBC 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Angela has the power of persuasion. Angela's voice sounded nothing like Eden's; if you ask me, Angela was simply trying to convince her son not to follow Claire and, ultimately, meet his death, though she didn't use any powers. Intonation aside, it seems unlikely that Tim Kring would create two characters with the same power, and you might have noticed that Angela was unsuccessful at convincing Nathan to let Claire go. Eden was always successful at persuading people until she met Sylar. This is irrelevant, however, because there is no concrete evidence to support your statement. Arwen undomiel 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncle! I have a Pair of Lincolns for anyone who will take the bet that Angela DOES have persuasion, but I concede there is not currently enough evidence. That being said, based on Behind the Eclipse 23 [3], over on Comic Book Resources, I think that her Ability should be listed as Unknown. Check out the interview, it's interesting.

An interesting observation I made in episode 19 .07% when Sylar kills Isaac (at time 0:35:16), he gives the same Eden like voice, but it doesn't seem to take... wonder what this means... Sniperz11 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I beleive Eden shot herself in the head so Sylar couldn't take her power. Perhaps him (trying) to use it is an indication that he attempted to extract Eden's power, but because of missing / mutilated brain matter, he couldn't fully understand it, and therefore couldn't fully duplicate it. 65.110.234.158 09:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The category header says "Known Powers", not "Superpowers". Thus, it can't be unknown because you can't have an Unknown Known Power. There is No Known Power. - Rebby 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

During a conversation with Claire, Angela admits she has special power too. She just didn't elaborate. --Kvasir 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

She's a little more vague than that, but regardless, until we know what her power is, "Known Powers" must be "None".--Trystan 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What about her power to incite OR? WookMuff 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the kiss of death...every person she has kissed on the forehead has died. Nathan, by his brother going nuclear, in "How to Stop an Exploding Man," and Charles in the same episode...I believe. Granted Charles was already terminal, whose to say Linderman couldn't cure him, speculation though.Computersucky 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nathan's not dead... Ophois 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite of all character articles needed!

Now that we have a clear picture of all the events of season one, a major rewrite of all character articles is needed. We can take huge articles like Hiro and Peter down to perhaps five or six paragraphs. But please, DO NOT just go deleting things all willy nilly. People who decide to take on this project must have a logical plan that will allow those paragraphs to fully explain his character and what he goes through, albet in a more condensed way. Thanks dposse 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The way the characters are presented must change

I think the way most of the characters are presented, episode by episode presentation of what they did, it is more likely to plot and not a presentation of a fictional character of a tv show. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Heroes fun page. I think now Season 1 is over most of the entries must be rewritten. -- Magioladitis 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Ophois 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dallas" Petrelli: Superpowered or just part of the team?

Linderman says that Petrelli was "one of us; someone with great power" and yes, that COULD imply having a power; at the same time, isn't it entirely possible that Dallas Petrelli was the original non-powered teammate, starting off the style of pairing used by the Company? Or if that doesn't work for you, what about Kaito or Angela Petrelli -- both are suspected of having powers, but neither is confirmed, although both clearly are "one of us" in the sense of knowing what Linderman was up to.

In my opinion, the statement here and in the "Landslide" article should be changed, since Petrelli hasn't been confirmed to have had a power -- at this point it's merely speculation based upon two statements with nebulous meanings.

Any thoughts on this? (Btw, I've chosen NOT to alter either page yet, in the hopes that someone with more history [read as: authority] on the Heroes wikiproject will make the reverts or alterations in the future, after some consideration)

Thanks, Padillah, -- I think the new version is much more accurate :) -- Anon, same as the prior set of comments about Dallas Petrelli.

Someone "Worse than Sylar"

I don't think we must have this kind of entry in Wikipedia. there are more characters in Suresh' map but we didn't make an entry. From the specific character we are not sure if he really is going to appear in the show or in the novels, if it someone we have already seen, if Molly was telling the truth and many other things. He never appeared in Season 1. I think the entry must be removed. -- Magioladitis 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. There's not enough info on this character that s/he deserves an entry. --Pentasyllabic 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Molly does say the person is a "he", not a "she". ("When I think about him, he can see me.") So unless I'm misremembering that quote, the person is likely male. Dugwiki 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "worse than sylar" character is Ularu, the monster painted in the first episode.

I agree that it's Uluru, but until it's stated on the show, it's speculation. Ophois 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with your speculations on the actual page, for one. For two, when we see Uluru, Micah and DL discuss him, and Micah comments that it's one of the old issues, before Isaac worked on the comic. So whether or not Uluru is actually part of Isaac's visions would be rampant speculation. ThuranX 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Isaac had a vision of Uluru. It's in the comics. Ophois 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Uluru is well covered in the artwork of Isaac Mendez article. I say it should stay there until we have clear indication that it's an actual character. --Kizor 07:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Does anyone else think that this article should be semi-protected? Ophois 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Or is there any way to protect individual sections, such as Recurring Characters (for Angela Petrelli) or the entry for James Walker? Ophois 03:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the whole article must be semiprotected. Since the show began some people keep changing None with Unknown, try to put spoilers from previews (most of the time inaccurate or wrong), and many other things. -- Magioladitis 06:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the semiprotection must be extened for two more weeks. We already had many vandalisms today. -- Magioladitis 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any vandalism in a while, and that was by registered users (who don't apply to semi-protection). Ophois 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant: We already had enough vandalisms by registered users. We don't want more, caused by unregistered users. -- Magioladitis 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think that after the protection ends, there has to be more vandalism before they will protect the page again. Ophois 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just one day of non-protection, and we've got a bit of vandalism. Can someone else please request semi-protection? I got it protected last time, and I think it would be more convincing if another user requsted it this time. Ophois 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How does someone request semi-protection? I'll do it. -- Magioladitis 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection). Be sure to read all the instructions. Ophois 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. NOW can someone change the thumbnail for Mr. Bennet?

The picture's been changed once again in the article. --Addict 2006 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Character Photos

Whoever did the images for the main characters or has access to the promo images that they were made from, can you please redo the images to be the size of the images on the recurring list? Other than on computers with wide screens, the images for some main characters are too small now for their rows now. Ophois 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Status column

The Status column for Main and Recurring characters was added as a quick way to filter out who is still on the show and who isn't, but it's become a place to speculate and haggle over the many cliffhanger fates shown in the finale. Plus, it makes the page too wide for a computer running 1024x768 with a Bookmarks bar open, which is a very common configuration.

I'd suggest getting rid of it entirely. Next season, we can have "Season 1 main characters", "Season 2 main characters", "Season 1 recurring characters", and "Season 2 recurring characters", with characters appearing in both seaons just listed under the more recent. Either that, or just list "Active" for anyone that isn't confirmed dead. For the "fate unknowns", even if they die in the first five minutes of season two, or are shown to have died, they are active characters as of the end of season 1.--Trystan 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully support. I haven't been happy with it anyway, and continuing it and the perpetual 'd00d U N0 i'm ritez' of speculation are going to piss off everyone fast. ThuranX 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend we use the second option - keep the column, but restrict it to "Active" or "Deceased", and only list a character as "Deceased" when the show explicitly states that they're dead. If/when we break up the characters by season, we can consider an alternate policy, but as long as we keep the current table setup (one for major, one for recurring), then we need some way to determine who's dead and who isn't. If we limit it to simply Active or Deceased, we remove all speculation from the equation (and prevent people from adding "Dead" to other columns, which was the problem before). --dws90 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we wait for the first episode of season 2, then we discuss and decide. We don't know what direction this show is going. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dws90. A column with only two options, "Active" or "Deceased". No "fate unknown". A character is active until confirmed he is dead. -- Magioladitis 09:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I support the above idea. - Rebby 09:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the change and added a bunch of comments to (hopefully) get people to not change it back. I decided to leave the Infomorph bit on Gittelman's entry, since that has been shown in an official source. --dws90 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Columns in Main/Recurring Characters

I would like to question the importance of some of these coloumns. Currently, I feel the size of the tables are too large, and I'm sure most of you feel the same. So, I'd like to ask why the "Age", "Occupation" and "Place of Origin" columns exist. What is the importance of these columns? Why do we need this information in the table? The table is a way to simply sum up a character in Heroes. Do you really think a character's age and occupation (ok, perhaps origin is important here) is important in the series? They are, after all minor details. And of course, these details can be obtained in the characters' pages, in the infobox. Another way to save space is to further reduce the size of the images in the tables. For an example, see Characters of Lost#Main characters — « hippi ippi » 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Occupation can be important. Age and Origin really aren't. You have a point, though, the tables are getting too big. I recommend getting rid of the Age and Origin columns, but leaving Occupation. --dws90 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If "Occupation" stays, it needs a good cleanup. Some of the entries are irrelevant; one that comes to mind is Mohinder Suresh and "taxi driver" (since it was such a minor aspect of his background.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I kinda think that the origin column is important. Since the show is supposed to be that people from all over get powers, the column shows that. Ophois 20:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I find Origin useful as well, since the action moves back and forth between the places listed. Occupation I find messy. It is relevant for a few characters, but trivial for most, and therefore doesn't fit smoothly into the chart.--Trystan 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)is a

I find all the entries important. Occupation needs cleanup. Maybe to change with "Main occupation". Mohinder for example is mainly geneticist and not a taxi driver-- Magioladitis 00:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Character Photos

Why have they all been deleted because of this "fair use" clause? I believe it is a mistake to delete all the images; anyone have an explanation as to why this was done?

Mirfors 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mirfors

I removed them because they failed two sections of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The criteria failed is 3a, which is non-free medium is kept to a small bit. All characters had images, so that is not "few." The second issue I removed it for is that they had no context around the photos. Most of the photos are "Person A died in episode B, had C power" and had no commentary on the image. Please do not reinsert the photos again, because I will remove them again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If we keep the photos only of the main characters is it ok? -- Magioladitis 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. The image police strike again. ThuranX 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah; they still won't provide criticial commentary of the image shown. We cannot use fair use images to show what a person looks like. However, I do resent the comment ThuranX posted above. The image policy wasn't made by me and we are trying to be fair with articles pointed out to us. If you have any issues with the policy, bring it up with the Wikimedia Foundation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent that all the people like you, out removing images non-stop, never notify the people at the pages in question. Instead, you sit like vultures, watchign over tags you put on the images that no one notices, and then go 'oops, guess they don't care, delete delete delete'. If you REALLY wanted the tags written, you'd check the 'what links here' and notify at the appropriate pages. This discussion's been held before, over and over, and everytime, there's a lot of support for notification at the article page, and yet it comes up again and again and again. And then the reoffenders hide behind policy. It's a crock. There's a much more peacable solution, but the image police don't want to FIX anything, they want to show off their power. They like to claim that 'it doesn't take much work to do', they could just DO it. But they don't. ThuranX 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I left edit summaries of what I was doing, but what done is done now and please do not add the images back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the images for the Heroes characters have been removed, why aren't the images on this page (Lost characters) removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Lost#Main_characters Mirfors 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mirfors

(reset indenting) Zscout, why don't you remove all character images from all pages while you're at it? Even if it is WP policy, radical edits have never been popular on WP, and the reactions by ThuranX, Mirfors, and me aren't surprising. Telling us that you will remove the images if they get readded doesn't really help either. --Pentasyllabic 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting those comments; I been working with Betacommand and Eagle_101, who I am sure yall spoken to before about removing of fair use images. The things I mentioned here and to the Lost people (which I did take care of the list Mirfors mentioned) is pretty simple; keep fair use to a small amount, don't use it for decoration and have critical commentary with the images and that is pretty much all what we are looking for. But, not many articles follow this policy, but given there is almost 2,000,000 articles and God knows how many lists, there is a lot of pages we will not see. So, just relax. As for the owning part, the fair use policy is set down by the Foundation that owns Wikipedia, so just because I won't do it doesn't mean someone else won't do it. And, aside from removing the photos, there is no other plans I have with the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother arguing with the guy, he's got a messiah complex about being the savior of wikipedia, just look at his user page. Agree with him and Wikipedia will be 'saved', disagree with him, and wikipedia fails. You can't expect to reason with anyone like that. Further, although betacommand and Eagle101 have been brought to AN/I and their actions determined to be within policy, both have been warned about the way they go about it. None of the three have slowed or abated their actions. They have a technical reading of policy on their side, and as strict and absolute deletionists, they have chosen to fix by cutting away anything not up to their standards, instead of repairing. While it's unfortunate, there's nothing anyone can do about any of it. ThuranX 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just use the same policy on them: "Please do not delete the photos again, because we will reinsert them again." Gosh these people have their heads bigger than god. --Kvasir 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me. Are people following protocol? What is wrong with removing the images? Sure the page doens't look as nice, but if it's that important to you, why not try and find a free image? It seems to me that this row is bitter and twisted. It's overly aggressive for no reason and it looks bad on the people involved. If you have a problem with Policy, it's not the people upholding the policy you should be angry at, it's the Policy itself. Jacobshaven3 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some photos were added last night. I've reverted that edit, not so as to get involved in the dispute, but simply because the licensing appears to be incorrect. (If I'm wrong, please revert me.) One aspect of the edit, the addition of a "protection" template, would need to be removed in that case, as the page isn't actually protected. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank god you added images again!!! We've had the imges that were deleted for what 9 pr 10 months and not having them just took all the life out of the page.

Well-supported theories ok?

Excellent page, people. Hat's off. I want to check with you guys before adding to make sure my addition fits.

I'd like to add a para to Charles Deveaux's entry suggesting that it's possible that his power is precognitive visions. It's based on the following:

Peter absorbs others' powers unconsciously when he's in the presence of a hero.

Peter's had several precognitive visions different than the type Issac has (sleeping, more surreal, more in-the-moment vs waking, realistic, snapshot)

He had to absorb this power from someone. Yet none of this generation of heroes have this ability.

It's alluded that the Old Guard Heros (Linderman, Dallas, Angela, Charles & Kaito) have powers.
- Peter hasn't been exposed to Dallas, Linderman and Kaito since he's developed his power, thus they're ineligible.
- Peter absorbed precognative visions from either Angela or Charles.
- Angela's heavy involvement in orchestrating Nathan's acendency suggest certainty from either being a precog or knowing one.
--> Either Angela or Charles have precognative visions.

Charles was the only character that has shown the ability to interact in Peter's visions.

--> Charles has precognative visions, which Peter absorbed unconsciously. Shown by Charles' ability to interact in Peter's vision.

It's supported from cannon. It's logical. I think it's a pretty strong argument. It fills in holes.

My question is a) does it have a place on this page, and if so, b) can I add it without all the supporting argument, with is boring to casual readers.

Look forward to whatever the consensus is - thought it'd be fun to throw out for discussion.

Trai dep 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, that is original research gained from the series. Unless it's a direct "[NAME] revealed he had precognitive abilities, and since Peter has met [NAME] then it's likely they were gaind from [NAME]. Unfortunately, unless you can make a direct comment that doens't require additional analysis, then it's OR and unuseable. Jacobshaven3 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Darn. Oh well, I'm glad I checked first then. REALLY excellent job, to all the authors. Congrads! Trai dep 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse but the first counter-argument I thought of was "Peter could have walked past someone on the street and gained their powers". Especially in Peters case, since his power works so passively, it really has to be explicitly shown. Sylar we know, if the brain is missing then maybe, Peter can just walk near someone so we have to be really explicit. Padillah 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

About the deletion of "Someone worse than Sylar"

Just to say to Magiolitidis's addition to this talk page, the only reason that the other names on Suresh's map haven't been put into articles on Wikipeida is the fact that no one bothered. I'm sure if one wanted to one could have made an article about a name on the map. This "Someone worse than Sylar" is also stated in the page "How to stop an Exploding Man". The text is below-

"Matt Parkman learns of Molly's amazing ability, but she is distraught to admit that she cannot find "everyone": there is one person she claims to be unable to find, someone "far worse" than Sylar, and that when she looks for him, he can see her."

I do think that this thing(She said it was male, she didn't say it was human, or animal) therefore should have a portion of a page(this isn't even a page) dedicated to it. Otherwise, how will any newcomer to Heroes know about this?

Also, about the fact that he didn't appear in season I- Linderman did not appear until episode 18, Gitelman didn't appear until 17, and not much in the main television series anyway. Sanjog Lyar appeared approx. 3 or 4 times, only in two episodes Malsky also appeared in very few episodes. There was talk of Linderman early in the season before he actually appeared in the series. There could be much more talk about this being before it is actually shown as well. Archiver 12:48:07 02 June 2007

But what WOULD we put? "Unknown character | Unknown Power | Unknown Everything | Molly hinted at him" ??? Come on. That's such a vague description, it would be better unlisted. We've got nothing besides a one-off comment by a character who we also know very little about. The writers themselves probably have very little determined as yet. Could it be Uluru? sure, it could. It could be Charles Devereaux, for all we know, and his power's astral projection, not precognition. Who knows? Not us, not the media. We've got nothing to cite, nothing at all. It'd be akin to saying "Next season, The police of Law & Order will try to solve some very difficult cases, and then the prosecutors will try to prosecute these dangerous offenders." yeah, duh, but unspecific. wait for good citable info. ThuranX 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Status column really be removed?

Since Fiction should always be n the present (according to WP:WAF#Presentation of fictional material), shouldn't the status be removed since if you watch the first episode all characters are alive still? Jacobshaven3 08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, you could just as easily be watching episode 23 of season 1, where a variety of the characters are dead. The guideline you have quoted, however, deals only with the use of tense in writing articles, not with when in a particular "fictional reality" the present should be determined as. Also, in the example given of a correct approach to writing a lead section, it specifically mentions the life of a fictional character, moving from fictional birth, through fictional life, and finally onto fictional death. WookMuff 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no determination of a single moment of "present" in a work of fiction, it moves with the action being described. With a summary chart, no action is being described, so we should either explicitly specify a point of reference, or remove information which depends upon one.

Occupation and Age are columns which pose similar problems (though I'm not a fan of the columns in terms of general usefulness, as I stated in a discussion above.) To someone sitting down with the Season 1 DVD set, Bennett isn't a former Primatech regional manager. That would be like calling Shakespeare's play The Former Merchant of Venice.

My preference would be to add a sentence above each chart stating "Character descriptions are as of the most recent aired episode or published graphic novel."--Trystan 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude... Spoiler Warning... Now yoou ruined merchant of venice for me :( WookMuff 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Also, in the interest of up-to-date info, i agree with the most recent thing. WookMuff 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Not sure if anyone knows, sorry if I'm reiterating what someone else has said, but references #21 and 28 are blank. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - I've fixed the references. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was bored and decided to look at your contribs. One thing led to another and poof, two absent references. lol. Glad to see you found the sources for them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kane

This article http://www.buddytv.com/articles/heroes/heroes-zach-quinto-confirmed-f-7406.aspx mentions a new character Kane, which might have something to do with the cockroaches?

Ando

Is there some official source for who is a "main Character" and who is simply "Recurring"? Because if not, I feel Ando should qualify as main. He is given a full "fleshing out" (for lack of a better word) and is present in about as many of the scenes as Hiro. LFStokols 04:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC) LFStokols

Unfortunately, we are not in control of who is a main character and who is a recurring character. As dws90 said at the top of the page, "The distinction between 'Main Characters' and 'Recurring Characters' isn't anything we're responsible for. Those titles are assigned by the producers of the show, and therefore we only list the main characters as those the producers consider main characters on their website and pay scale. If it were up to most of the people here, [Ando] would have been a main character a long time ago, but it's not, so he isn't." For now, Ando will have to remain as a recurring character. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a LENGTHY discussion of it at the main article for Heroes. Here is a link to the first major relevant section: [4]. Hope that helps. ThuranX 05:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Status of Sylar?

Currently, it says Sylar is "Active". Yet, I'm left to wonder, is it more speculation to think he might still be alive, or is it more speculation to think he's dead? 71.171.182.167 01:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

His body is missing, and IIRC, the actor has signed on for season 2. Ophois 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For all we know, the morgue took away his body. We're never really shown anything that says otherwise. As for the actor signing on for season 2 - could be flash backs, again, for all we know. 71.171.182.167 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The morgue dragged his body into the sewers? Anyways, possible spoiler: Sylar will apparently have a mentor in season 2, and the mentor is connected with to the cockroaches (like the one appearing near the manhole).Ophois 02:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't actually see his body go into the sewers, we can't really say it went there. That's speculation. :) But let's say the Cockroach King did drag his body into the sewers. Perhaps he just wants the body so he can absorb the powers from it or run some tests on it or who knows what. Again, more speculations.

Don't get me wrong though, I'd put money on him still being alive (even though, again, him signing on for Season 2 could be for flashbacks or even a shapeshifter/illusionist type thing - speculation)... Do you have a source that we could reference for the Cockroach King thing to place beside him being alive? 71.171.182.167 14:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of the column is to clarify which characters who no longer appear on the show, not to speculate about who will or will not be returning next season. If he was in the last aired episode, and there is no formal notice that the actor has left the show, then "Active" is appropriate as the most current status we have, and involves no speculation.--Trystan 17:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there formal notice that Tawny Cypress left the show after episode 16? 71.171.182.167 04:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The trailers for that episode stated that someone would die, and there were interviews with the actress about her death. Ophois 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The cockroaches have been addressed on this page already. There have been no reliable sources regarding the cockroaches, and none about a Mentor. Until there are such sources, we should NOT introduce anything about this to the article. ThuranX 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly accepting sources for things that MIGHT happen? This is an encyclopedia, and as such it does not reflect what WILL happen. It reflects what DID happen. Unless and until someone shows up on the show (or, to a lesser degree, in the graphic novel) it's not canon. Several things could happen between now and show time (including one of the sources simply being WRONG). Please, I understand that we are excited about Season 2 starting but that doesn't mean we get to put whatever we want in here. It's still Wikipedia and it still needs to be verifiable. And you can't verify that something that hasn't happened, happened. Padillah 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing characters

I think there are two characters missing: the red haired officer and her blonde subordinate, both in LA police force. There were the two police women who were introduced at the same time as Matt Parkman was. Specially the blonde girl, who helped Matt to get in FBI, is an interesting character because she believed easily in Parkman's ability to read minds. She is not a regular skeptic.

Best regards, wolfette 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The blonde agent is Audrey Hanson, who's already on the page. The other one isn't, but she's an incrediby minor character and doesn't really deserve her own section. If we add her, we might as well add the security guard at Primatech, the owner of the sword shop, ect. --dws90 06:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Past tense for comics?

I know that present tense is supposed to be used for the events of the episodes, but since most of the comics show backstories (such as The Golden Handshake), should they be in past tense, since the events have already happened before the series timeline? Ophois 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Ophois 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

David Anders as a Regular

According to HeroSite.net, David Anders (Kensei) will be a series regular. (http://herosite.net/season2cast.htm) Ophois 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Should he be added to the cast list? Ophois 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No one replied, so I went ahead and added him to the list and only the conrete info about him.Ophois 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've tweaked it a bit to split the list between S1 and S2. Still needs some details, as well as code to make the two tables a standard width. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I put all three tables at 100% width. Ophois 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good time to discuss how we want to handle the seasons. Although I don't advise adding all of the rumored characters up just yet, there are definitely going to be new main and recurring characters, as well as returning old ones. My recommendation is that we spit both the recurring and main character tables in two - one for active characters, and another for former characters. We then add a column to tables indicating what season each character is from. Sound good? --dws90 05:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to keep the tables as Main and Recurring, but add a "Season(s)" column in. Characters that are dead/no longer on the show would be moved to the bottom rows. The only problem with my idea is that the Main table already has a lot of columns. Ophois 05:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I made an example of my recommendation here. I feel that it'll be better in the long run to separate off the dead ones, since the tables could get quite unwieldy if everybody that was ever a main or recurring character is combined. --dws90 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yours may work, but the dead character table needs to somehow show whether they were main or recurring. Ophois 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is better to organize or classify in terms of seasons - characters shouldn't be moved elsewhere because of death etc. I (it becomes too "in-universe".) --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That would work the second seasons was starting fresh, but it's not. Since we obviously don't want to have duplicate entries for characters, we're left with a table of season one characters, some of whom are continuing on and some of whom are not, then yet another table for active season two characters, which isn't all-inclusive because some of the characters are already in the season one table. It'll get messy, and confusing, very fast. Besides, it's not tremendously in-universe, since when the character dies, the actor losses prominence in the production of the show itself. --dws90 01:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference for Sylar joining as a regular (http://www.heroesfanatic.com/2007/06/zachary-quinto-to-return-as-series-regular/). As for DL and the two dead characters, I found the page with the Season 2 promos (which they are absent from). Should we change the article to say they're missing from the promos instead of cast list? (http://www.herosite.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=39) Ophois 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ando - (http://www.heroesrevealed.com/cast/james-kyson-lees-ando-masahashi-regular-character-on-heroes/) Ophois 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Characters, Season 2

There's enough info out there now to add some of Season 2's recurring characters. What does everyone think? Also, I'm not very good with wikitables (so I don't think I'd be able to change it), but does anyone think we should add another columnn to show what season they are recurring in? Ophois 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there been an official list yet? My opinion is that we don't touch season two until there's an official NBC announcement about it with some level of detail (or, of course, the season starts). At this point, other sites might simply be wrong, or the casting might change before the season actually begins. Remember the unaired version of the pilot with the engineer? --dws90 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nichelle Nichols is now going to be recurring in Season 2 (5 or 6 episodes). (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Heroes-Latest-Star/800020349)

Also, shouldn't Zach and Hiro's father be put into the recurring list? I'm pretty sure at least Zach has been in more episodes than Linderman. Also, I think that Hana should be removed from the list. She's only in one or two episodes. Ophois 08:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough the title "Recurring" does not mean they've been on the show a given number of times. It's a contract negotiation thing. You can be listed as a recurring character and be on fewer episodes than someone that doesn't have "Recurring Character" status. I think it has to do with marketing the show. If they advertise that Nichelle Nichols is a recurring character there are a given number of Trekkies that will watch on the off chance they see her. As opposed to "Yabbo Shemnson" who can be on 40 mins per epi and no one cares cause they don't know who he is. Padillah 12:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a contract thing, then shouldn't there be sources for the recurring list in this article? Ophois 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a bone of contention that I have with sourcing. To source what HAS happened is fine but I have a big problem with sourcing what hasn't happened yet. No one is a regular on the show (or, indeed on the cast) until the show airs. There are several references already to season 2 with source material, and Vol 2 epi 1 has yet to air. There were several people that sourced Mrs. Petrelli's powers last season... and are, to date, wrong. If Wiki is to be encyclopedic it must adhere to the tenets of reality. No foretelling the future. Padillah 20:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but Zach and Hiro's father definitely were recurring in Season 1, and Hana wasn't. Ophois 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And, if I remember correctly, Zach was moved to the recurring character section upon confirming his status. I'm wondering about the worth of deliniating these differences. Wouldn't the simple act of stating which episodes any given character was in solve the issue of how much they were a part of the show? Besides, Hiro's father, while deserving of status was decidedly less influential than Linderman. Of course it could be argued that he was more influential since he started Hiro's training. Neither of which is determined by how many times a character appears in person. In short, everyone has their favorite characters and these labels are simply a means of giving their particular character more status. Padillah 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Zach is listed under "Friends and family of main characters". Do you agree that he should be moved to "Recurring" and Hana should be moved into "Other characters"? Ophois 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved Hana to "Other characters". Zach doesn't have an article that can be linked to on the recurring list. I'm not familiar with creating new pages, so does anyone with experience in doing so mind transferring this page's info on Zach to a stub on him? Or does anyone have a suggestion on how to move him to the recurring list but keep his info on this page? Ophois 07:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I miss my guess you simple decide on the appropriate name for the article, then create a link to the page. When you follow the link Wikipedia will tell you there is currently no article and ask if you'd like to create one. That's the quick answer, "...the long way takes a thousand lifetimes". Padillah 04:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Needed

Why on earth shouldn't this page have a spoiler warning? --jazzle 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because, it is understood that when you look-up information about a series, oddly enough, you will find information about the series. The decision on what information represents a "spoiler" to some may not be a "spoiler" to others. Also, what may be nominal info to some may be considered "spoiler" to others. So both the presentation and determination of "spoiler" information has been called into question. Padillah 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kristen Bell

A new interview reveals that she will be in at least 13 episodes. I think that she should be added to the recurring list for now. (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Exclusive-Kristen-Bell/800020731) Ophois 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is she not listed. I mean she already has a name and everything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.212.119 (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added her. Ophois 03:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Nathan petrelli dead?

yeah i cant see why nathan petrelli could be still alive or as wikipedia put it active. what he did in how to stop an exploding man was the equivilent of hugging a nuclear bomb as it went off. unless peter who already has claire's power also has lindermans power then i cant see how nathan is alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsterboy (talk • contribs) 22:38, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Once he carried Peter high enough and exceeded the Earth's escape velocity, he could have just thrown Peter straight up and flown away. Since he can fly faster than sound, it's possible he could have escaped the blast radius. Wanderer32 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that light (and therefore radiation) travels faster than sound, right? Even if he threw Peter as far as he could he'd need several seconds to get far enough away. His best bet is to fly high enough then drop Peter and fly at right angle away. This way gravity pulls Peter away as fast or faster than Nathan flies. Of course then he has to catch Peter again but terminal velocity for a human is 633,600fph(120mph, 176fps) so at 35,000 feet he'd have about 3.3 min to catch him. Since Nathan can fly faster than 700fps this shouldn't be a problem. Padillah 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He had several seconds between the time they passed out of visual range and the time of the explosion. As his maximum flight speed is unknown, it's entirely possible he could have made it far enough away, regardless of whether he threw Peter or simply dropped him. And if they were fast enough and high enough, Peter would continue to ascend either way due to inertia. Wanderer32 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In the article we state some as dead only if he is shown in the show to be definetally dead. -- Magioladitis 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As we should. Thank you for the reminder and please excuse my flights of fancy in OR-Land. Padillah 11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why Nathan even needed to take Peter, since Peter can fly anyway. Maybe on the way up Peter realises that he can fly and doesn't, therefore, need Nathan, so he goes it alone? Trick 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter said that he couldn't do anything. IIRC, there was some interview with writers who say that it was because he can only use one power at a time (though this has been shown to be wrong). Ophois 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more that he can only use one power at a time safely. After he first learned to channel a power without being near its original owner, he tried to use several powers at once and nearly overloaded himself, and Claude had to knock him out. It's too hard for him to control multiple powers at the same time, and he was having enough trouble just keeping the radiation manipulation under control. He wouldn't have been able to access and use the flight power without losing control over the radiation manipulation, and exploding instantly. Wanderer32 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Better name for Zane's power?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the term "molecular manipulation" being used to refer to Zane Taylor's power. It's too broad a term, and makes it seem like that power has far more applications than it really does. All he (and Sylar) can do with it is make objects melt, he can't turn things into a solid, gas, or plasma, or transform an object into another form (except a puddle) the way a true "molecular manipulator" could. I think "liquefaction" or "liquification" is a better term for it. Wanderer32 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming all he can do IS liquify. I'm not saying that they can't do more, but as the producers have been naming the powers, it would most likely be that Zane never found any other use for his ability and that Sylar just hasn't figured it out yet. True, using just the information in the show, it should be liquification, however the power names usually come from the producers. PureSoldier 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When have the producers called it "molecular manipulation"? Wanderer32 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, is there any real reason to keep calling this power "molecular manipulation"? Unless there's an official source that calls it that, or until we see Sylar or Peter doing something other than liquefying using this power, I think it should be renamed to "liquefaction". It's more precise, and fits better with the information on the show. Wanderer32 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop the speculation (rules for canon)

First off "cannon" is a piece of artillery. Second, I know we are excited about the second season but can we stop with the speculation based on so many articles in so many papers? This is all OR. Until they appear in the show it's OR. Who knows the show could be canceled before the season starts (it's happened before). The actor could get an offer for a movie they just can't pass up. Several things could happen that would invalidate any information (or, parish the thought, the guy at T.V. Guide might be wrong! a la Mrs. Petrelli's powers). Can we please stop with the season 2 speculation? Padillah 18:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maya's Powers

In the latest comic, it hints that she has a virus-spreading power. However, it never specifically states that it is Maya's power. Info for the new season has shown that Alejandro also has a power deadly to others, so the virus power could easily be his. Ophois 12:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They could have complementing powers: he kills, she heals; He secretes poison, she secretes antidote... The main point is we don't know which has what power so any mention would be speculation. I am barely holding myself back from deleting the speculation of who will be in the next season. As far as I'm concerned this is just as speculative as the argument about powers. But since the premiere is Monday I can hold off a little longer. (BTW none of this is directed at you Ophois, it's in support of you) Padillah 13:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... not being able to load the comic myself yesterday, I presumed that the person who added the reference involving it on the main page was basing the power information on solid evidence from that book. (That's why I restored the text here, along with the ref.) Apologies - thanks for reverting me. I'll check the main page as well. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maya's power has been identified as "mimicking physical motion". Though there is no official source, the same power keeps popping up on the web. Specialk22 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean Monica.Ophois 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Maya Herrera listed as a character but not Alejandro Herrera?--Syd Henderson 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alejandro isn't a main character. There isn't much info about him yet, so that's probably why he's not in any of the other sections. Ophois 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Urm, the comic states that two powers can be opposites. "Like the ability to host a deadly virus. Naturally this type of mutation if often rejected because... if left unchecked, the worst cases of scenarios can occur... the extinction of the species. But in some cases the very mutations that seems most destructive can be cured, corrected or eradicated. Or better yet... take the virtually immortal cancer cell, some scientists believe it holds the secret to keeping healthy cells alive longer. A seemingly unattractive mutation... holding the potential for something great". Since Maya and Alejandro were so obsessed about staying close together, it seems obvious their powers compliment each other. She creates a virus and he creates a cure, which is why when he left they died and she couldn't stop it happening. I'm pretty sure I've seen evidence in an interview of this as well but can't recall it. But it's probably going to be easier to wat until shown in the episode anyhow. 172.142.149.106 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Lizard makes it fairly clear Maya is the one who spreads the disease while Alejandro can cure it.Falcon4196 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Molly Walker as Main Character?

I was thinking that molly walkers character had only began to develop in the last few episodes then the premier, should she be listed as a Main character now, because of her living with Matt Parkman and Dr. Suresh?

71.215.225.68 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Main Cast, Recurring Cast, and Guest Stars are all determined by NBC. If they call her a Main Cast member, then yes - she's a main character. Otherwise, she's a recurring, "also starring" cast member. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it certain Kensei is dead?

Given that much of the Season 2 premiere was devoted to "disproving" the myth of Kensei, is it certain that he is, in fact, dead? [I'm not saying he's definitely alive, I'm merely asking if his proper status is more accurately "Unknown" than "Deceased".] Samer 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He looked pretty alive to me. Unless he died on-screen, He's active. This list refers to the caucasian male played by David Anders who spoke to Hiro and, ultimately, punched him in the face. The status of the mythical Kensei is unclear, but not pertinent to this list. Besides, I'm sure the show will explain everything, eventually. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course he was alive in 1671. The question is whether he's alive now. Wanderer32 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Any conclusions about this would be speculation, in the absence of a solid citation. Plus, don't forget about the guidelines for writing about fiction:

"By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'."

--Ckatz^chat _spy 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That would mean he's "Active". He is currently Active in the story so he's Active in the list, no? Padillah 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to reconsider the active/deceased column. What will happen if Kensei is dead in the "present" (21 st century) and active in the 17th century but he is seen in like 9-10 episodes helping our heroes by doing actions in the past? Of course active/inactive is much better and simpler than the thing we had in the beginning , but i wonder if now it's the time to completely remove it completely. -- Magioladitis 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just include a note indacating he is in 1671 if people are finding it confusing. Falcon4196 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

West and flight

Are we really sure that West can fly? The whole idea of his ability to fly comes from a comic that also portrays a metaphorical representation of humans as robots and aliens. The entire idea of flying and being free may be symbolic and not literal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.105.105 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it comes from the last 1:30 of the season premiere. He hovers just outside Claire's window and then flies away. So, yeah, he can fly. Padillah 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think his power is really flying, i don't think the writers would have 2 people that have the power to fly, it's possible that he could be levitating, as far as we know, Nathan Petrelli hasn't been shown to be able to hover. 71.215.225.68 13:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but so far the only clear evidence we've seen is that his power is flight, so that's what should go in the article. If the producers decide to trick us, so be it - we'll change it later. As far as we know, Claire might not have any powers, and is simply be constantly healed by an invisible Peter from the future that has obtained Linderman's powers. Nevertheless, we can still put her power as regeneration until we see evidence to the contrary. --dws90 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Nathan has hovered, in "Six Months Ago". And Peter hovered when mimicking Nathan's power in "Don't Look Back". Wanderer32 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember where I saw but there was an interview with one of the producers that said unequivocally there will be duplicate powers. That, coupled with the fact that we saw West not only hover but fly away, I think "Flight" is an accurate description of his powers. Padillah 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that it has been shown that Kensi can regenerate in the same manner as Claire I think is clear that there are duplicate powers Falcon4196 02:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope and Dr. Witherspoon and primatech

just wondering why dr. witherspoon and hopes characters are taking up room in the character section? they werent even plot significant characters in the story or plotlines. i think they need to be taken away. the same for the character Steve R. Gustavson. these characters just werent significant to the plot or future plot. If we were going to add them, we might as well add minor characters like the fbi agent that was with agent hanson in the second episode of season 2 or the two fbi agents niki/jessica killed at lindermans hotel. they just seem like a waste of space. Secondly, now that zach quinto is a part of the main cast, virginia greys bio needs to be moved to the friends and family of main character section. Lastly, i think that we should say that BOb works for the COMPANY and not primatech paper. In four months later...he makes it clear that he works for the company. primatech may not be his front like it was for bennet. same with thompson. He is a member of the company not primatech. also, i not sure how to sign, so i am just going to put my e-mail.76.168.220.243 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)chrisisinchrist2@yahoo.com...september 26, 2007 at 4:51pm pACIFIC

Bob

Is there a source or anything to suggest that he will be recurring? If not, he should be moved to employees of the Company section. Ophois 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what happened to Bob's information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.20.11 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no source showing that he is recurring. Ophois 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean he is not found ANYWHERE in the article, I know he isn't recurring yet, but shouldn't there be at least something about him under the Primatech section? comment added by 64.180.20.11 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob (Stephen Tobolowsky) Employee of the Company Chrysopoeia Active

This entry was in the recurring characters. It was removed and no section for that guy exists. -- Magioladitis 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there should at least be one under Primatech, if not recurring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.20.11 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Takezo Kensei/David Anders

Regarding the status of Takezo Kensei/David Anders. I'm aware that different sources have stated that he will be a a main character/starring actor, but the fact is that in the season 2 premiere Anders is billed as guest star, and he isn't mentioned among the other show stars at the official website.

Either the earlier sources were mistaken, or Anders will be promoted a series main star mid-season, just like Jack Coleman/Noah Bennett was during season 1. Either way - Kenzei should be moved to the recurring characters section, until he is mentioned as a show regular in the show, right? Pjär80 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The writers/producers are probably waiting to add him to the main cast until he appears in the present, so that people will be surprised. Ophois 16:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, as is my contention with using gossip sites as citations, the initial information was, in fact, wrong. (either way he should be moved) Padillah 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it's a severe problem that spoiler sites, tabloids and unconfirmed statements continue to be used as a source to several of the otherwise good television articles on Wikipedia. However - given that I'm rather new to the Heroes articles, I will try not to get into that debate (I've been involved in that very discussion regarding the Desperate Housewives articles, which finally are beginning to be straighten up).

Still - as to the subject of Anders' status, I will move Kensei to the recurring characters section if no one has any valid reason why we shouldn't. Pjär80 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Magioladitis 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved Kensei, as well as created a "Characters yet to be introduced" passage. It's difficult - if not impossible - to find encyclopedic valid sources for what status these character will get when introduced, and moving them to a separate list is IMO the only encyclopedic way to include these characters in the article.

I also added Alejandro Herrera to the recurring characters, as he has got his own article.

Hopefully this will work well with everyone. :) Pjär80 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the creation of new articles for characters appeared in only one episode and may play in 2-3 more. The "background" of the characters is usually a very detailed part of the plot, sometimes containing the character's lines in quotes. I think we have to be careful with that. In the past this happened with Charlie who starred in only two episodes and later I nominated the article for deletion. -- Magioladitis 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. The article on Alejandro did already exist, and the deleting/including of an article has to be proceeded by consensus. Until such is reached this article ought to show the reality of which caracter articles that exist - thus I added a link to the Alejandro article to this article. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that :)

Given that there are a Heroes Project, the best thing would be if we could reach an agreement on at what point new character articles ought to be created. This would mean a lot less work for all of us. Pjär80 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with characters that have yet to appear in an episode and we have no basis for their importance in the series. At what point do we stop believing in gossip? How many episodes need to pass for this information to be rendered moot? I'm still seeing arguments for Mrs. Pettrelli and Kaito Nakamura having powers. When does it end? At what point does this article become encyclopedic? Padillah 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why has Elle's power been changed to "Unidentified"? Ophois 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the citation was some gossip site that used E!online as their source. If we're going to pretend to be encyclopedic we can't just stick stuff in cause "someone" said it. It has to be a reliable source. E!Online botched up the info on Mrs. Pettrelli and has never been anything more than a celebrity gossip outlet. If you ask me, if it hasn't been seen on screen it's speculation. Too many things happen during production to reliably predict the future. Heck, if you can remember back to the gossip that was coming out about The Crow until Brandon got hurt then they had to re-edit and it wasn't at all like the gossip. Face it - even if the producers or NBC says they have someone on cast, until they show up on screen it can change, it's predicting the future. I'm not advocating the removal of everything, just trying to keep the more esoteric stuff to a minimum. I had a question about listing cast regulars before the season even started and look what we're discussing now. This is the kind of information the Heroes Wiki is for. Wikipedia should be as clean as it can be. Padillah 12:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anders as main character

I have restored Anders as a main character because the evidence to that effect is overwhelming. Reliable, valid sources have noted his move from recurring to main cast status. Anders himself has commented on how he is credited as a guest at first, and then as a regular. NBC's press releases for the episodes describe him as being part of the cast, along with Davis, Ramirez, and the others who stayed on from season one. The article text now explains that as well. This isn't "crystal ball" stuff - we have more verifiable evidence indicating his status as a main character than we do to prove he is only a "recurring" character". (BTW, there's also a cast page on the Heroes site for Dana Davis/"Monica Dawson". HTML exists to link to it from the cast page, but that code is currently commented out and thus not visible. NBC's releases also list Kirsten Bell as cast, but I've left that for now in the hopes of resolving this issue first.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NBC.com I don't mind. It's E!Online and Hereos fan sites that I don't feel should count as "reliable sources". Also, direct interviews with the cast or production should be OK, but when the source is the article suthor themselves or "stuff they heard" I don't feel that's good enough. For example, the citation for including Jessica Collins is a fan site that sites The Hollywood Reporter as it's source. So we've got a citation of a fansite that's only source is The Hollywood Reporter. How is that reliable? Padillah 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are deleted scenes cannon?

I noticed that in the short text for Lyle Bennet, it's mentioned a deleted scene as part of his story. I don't think deleted scened are cannon and the tex should be removed? -- Magioladitis 23:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. With the exception of the pilot, I'd say that they are canon, except where contradicted by scenes actually in the show or scenes in later shows. Even scenes that make it into the show could be superceded later on (see also Retcon). ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Canon - nope. Encyclopedic interest - depending on the nature of the content. In this specific case, IMO it's worth mentioning, as long as it's clearly stated that it isn't canon. This is what writing from a real world perspective is all about. Pjär80 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How many characters are we going to put on this page?

I'm surprised no one has added the addle-brained manager from Copy Kingdom yet. We've got Hope, Andy, Kimiko, Tina, Jackie... What does it take to be insignificant? Characters like Chandra, who embodies the ideas the series is baised on... or Thompson who was the personification of The Company's evil, are notable enough and are good examples. Some guy that in one episode? Not so much. Padillah 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if there's an Other characters section, then characters in at least two episodes probably should go there, or characters important to a specific plot (like Andy in "Five Years Gone"). Ophois 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the descriptions are really detailed and they are like part of they plot. I think we have to rewrite everything. On the other hand, all the superheroes must stay even if for some of them we just keep his name and his power. -- Magioladitis 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem most listings of characters faces after the first season or so. In order to maintain the encyclopedic value of the article, some general guide lines for which characters qualifies to be included - as well as how they are to be organized - have to be created. Various WP articles has tried to solve this in various ways. If it was all up to me I'd go about the Heroes character list something like this:

"Main characters" sorted by the characters' last name (integrating the current season 1 and season 2 listing to one)
"Family of the main characters" sorted by the characters' last name (excluding the "friends" part of the current article, but including every family member to have appeared on the show, as well as those seen in the graphic novels)
"Secondary heroes" sorted by the characters' last name (including every character shown to posses superpowers to have appeared on the show, and who isn't a family member of any of the main characters)
"Additional characters" sorted by first appearance (including every non-hero, non-related, character credited to have appeared in three episodes or more)

Put into practice this is what the list would look like at the moment:

Main characters

Claire Bennet
Noah Bennet
Monica Dawson
Simone Deveaux
DL Hawkins
Gabriel "Sylar" Gray
Maya Herrera
Takezo Kenzei
Ando Masahashi
Isaac Mendez
Hiro Nakamura
Matt Parkman
Nathan Petrelli
Peter Petrelli
Micah Sanders
Niki Sanders
Mohinder Suresh

Family of the main characters

Lyle Bennet
Sandra Bennet
Charles Deveaux
Meredith Gordon
Virginia Gray
Paulette Hawkins
Kaito Nakamura
Kimiko Nakamura
Janice Parkman
Angela Petrelli
"Dallas" Petrelli
Heidi Petrelli
Simon & Monty Petrelli
Hal Sanders
Chandra Suresh
Mrs Suresh
Shanti Suresh

Secondary heroes

Charlie Andrews
Bob
Claude
Brian Davis
Hana Gitelman
The Haitian
Alejandro Herrera
Sanjog Iyer
Daniel Linderman
Eden McCain
Dale Smither
Ted Sprague
Zane Taylor
Molly Walker
West
Candice Wilmer

Additional characters

Season one

Zach
"Texas" Tina
Nirand
Audrey Hanson
Jackie Wilcox
Brody Mitchum
Sheriff Davidson
Special Agent Elisa Thayer
Nathan's Campaign Manager
Hank
Lynette the Waitress
Aron Malsky
Thompson

Season two (note that since only two episodes have aired, no character qualify at the moment, but given one or two more episodes these characters already introduced are likely to be included)

Ricky
Yaeko
Detective Bryan Fuller
Debbie
Will & Tuko
Mr Zern
Martha

Personally I really think this would work - It's fairly easy to understand, it's easy to maintain, it minimize the risk of questions concerning which characters that ought to be included in the article, as well as that of where each character ought to be listed, and it doesn't include too specific groups of characters.

Thougts? Pjär80 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is much better than the Primatech/Company/etc. things. Many characters have changed sides, Primatech is only a part of the Company, etc. I agree. -- Magioladitis 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this better. We're already running into problems with where to put season two characters vs. Season one etc. I think one more criteria should be, if the character isn't reintroduced in the next season their entry should be depricated. Maybe reduced to one or two descriptive sentances. Padillah 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it visable - this is what I had in mind. Note that - with the exception of some minor character which doesn't match my suggested criterias - I havn't changed or deleted any text from the current article, save from the additional details given in the table for the characters currently listed as "recurring" (personally I have a bit of a problem with this term, since it hasn't any encyclopedic given meaning, and thus I havn't included it in my suggestion, and keeping a table for every character listed as "secondary heroes" isn't possible, since not all of them could fill out separate articles). Since this information is given in the individual character articles, I don't think this is a problem though - I even regard this as an improvement, since it makes a very long article somewhat easier to handle.

As Padillah suggests, several of the minor characters' description might very well need to be shortened. But as a basic concept to work from - What do you think? Pjär80 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I' m already working on it. We "have to go deeper" as the Bennet would say to the Haitian. We need character profiles and not step-by-step description of everyone's "life". But, you have to know that the situation in the featured character articles is worse. After finishing here we have to move on in step 2. Btw, I would like to suggest to have in small letters under the name of each character three things: actor, first appearance, known power. This would make things easier to read and then I could deleted all these lines "played by ..., he appeared in...". -- Magioladitis 02:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great - I agree with Magioladitis on every point. Pjär80 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree...agree...agree...agree! But I dont think all the characters are plot significant. I think the following SHOULD NOT BE added.

Simon & Monty Petrelli- They should be added with Nathan or Heidi Mrs Suresh- Should be added with chandra or mohinder Sheriff Davidson- i dont think he was that plot significant. Special Agent Elisa Thayer - she should probably just get a shout out with audery hansen or parkmans page Nathan's Campaign Manager- Just add him to Nathans Hank- keep him with hank and lisa section. he isnt that significant for his own section. Lynette the Waitress- she wasnt that important.

I also say that we keep mr. muggles, fusor, haram, guillame, and mr. and mrs. walker --76.168.220.243 02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... this is one of my point - if we start to debate what characters are important and which are not, then we will slide away from NPOV. I agree that the characters you mention is less important than many others, but IMO they have to be included in order for us to stay encyclopedic. The fact that they aren't as important for the storylines will be shown as it won't be much text about them.

BTW - By using my criterias Fusor, Haram, Guillame and Mrs. and Mr. Walker won't be included. Pjär80 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the recurring characters should still get their own section. I don't really like that they're stuck in with all the minor characters. Ophois 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as there are a encyclopedic definition of what differs a "recurring" character from a "minor" character, I'm all with you. I've created a new article - List of minor characters with superpowers in Heroes - with every superpowered character that can't fill an article by itself. By doing so, this article is easier to get a grip on, I hope. Pjär80 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, being an active character and appearing in at least five episodes makes him/her recurring. Ophois 04:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - just to illustrate the difficulties: then Chandra Suresh, Meredith Gordon, Charlie Andrews, Mr. Linderman, Charles Deveaux, Takezo Kensei and Hana Gitelman all would disqualify as recurring characters, since they all appeared in less than 5 episodes. :/ Pjär80 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of those, only Linderman was considered recurring before (how many episodes is he in?), though since he's close to the dividing line, his large presence in the first half of the season should make him recurring, IMO. Kensei will end up counting as recurring (if not main character). Ophois 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that we keep every character that are listed under "Secondary heroes" and "Additional family of the main characters", and set the limit for the characters listed under "Additional characters" to 5, instead of 3, as it is at the moment, this would exclude Nirand, Sheriff Davidson, Elisa Thayer, the Campaign Manager, Hank & Lisa, Lynette and Aron Malsky from the article, and keep Zach, Tina, Audrey Hanson, Jackie Wilcox, Brody Mitchum and Thompson. This would be OK by me. Note that it means that we won't be able to add any new non-family members, non-heroes to the list in a couple of month though. Pjär80 05:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

MAYBE we can add a section of characters introduced in the graphic novel like haram, fusor and guilame. he has been in two novels and haram and fusor have been in 4. and two of them had powers. guillame also is the haitans father--76.168.220.243 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Including evolved humans from the comics under "Secondary heroes" is of course an option. Personally I'd rather not though - the article is extensive at it is. Of course, it's stil open for discussion :) Pjär80 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad that witherspoon, hope and Steve R. Gustavson were taken off. they were so pointless.--76.168.220.243 04:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well its all subjective. Whatever everyone thinks is Best. I think Guillame was important, especially in understand that Haitian and his religious thinking. Haram and Fusor are probably not as important. They may become important later in the series, but I think for now I am going to support Guillame. Especially since he has a special ability. That might be important. Also Guillame had something to do with the Helix because of something to do with a snake eating a crane. But hey, I wont add him unless everyone feels strongly about it.--76.168.220.243 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

additional season 2 characters

I finished the section with the characters that were introduced in episodes one and two of season 2. it is just a skeleton to build on, but i feel it is encyclopedic to new people to show who may wants some information on the new characters they are seeing on the show. the section can be developed as the season goes on. but it is just some info for newbies to the show. if anyone wants to add to it, that would be great. i know yamagato has a lot of history on yaeko who is the princess. i didnt have time to fully research her past. i just put it in the context to where the show is now. are thier any other characters that have been introduced that may need to be added? if so, add them.--76.168.220.243 05:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is much better now. -- Magioladitis 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the characters page. I vote to keep the changes.

Someone worked really hard on the character page and it is great. it is very concise and easy to navigate and understand. especially since the characters are changing around sooooo much during the second season. Great job to the user who contributed. I vite to keep the changes and lets all do our part to maintain this great page and keep it very encyclopedic and varifiable. --76.168.220.243 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Great job and wonderful idea of listing characters this way. I hope it cuts down on edit wars regarding characters with/without powers. It looks a lot more straight-forward and navigable. Good job. Padillah 12:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

^ "Hiro's Blog" (HTML). Hiro's NBC Blog Page. Retrieved 2006-11-20.
^ http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/novel_002.shtml
^ http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/novel_002.shtml

[1] "Hiro's Blog" (HTML). Hiro's NBC Blog Page. Retrieved 2006-11-20.

[2] ttp://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/novel_002.shtml

[3] ttp://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/novel_002.shtml

[1]

[2]

[3]