Talk:List of characters in Heroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is not a forum! This is not a forum for idle discussion of Heroes. Comments that do not pertain specifically to the improvement of the article "List of characters in Heroes" are subject to removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of characters in Heroes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Image:WikiProjectHeroesLogoBig.PNG‎

This page is within the scope of the Heroes WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Heroes. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


  • /Talk:Minor Characters of Heroes
  • Merge Proposal
  • Archive 1 Powers of Claire, Micah, Mohinder, and Eden; Naming convention of Sanjog, Ando, and Charlie; Zach's MySpace; Entries of Sylar, Hank and Lisa.
  • Archive 2 Suresh's list of people with powers; Defining the powers of Ted, Peter, Sylar, Mr. Bennet, and Niki; Hal's relationship with Niki/Jessica; Eden's suicide; Powers: "None" v. "None Known"; Simone's main character status.
  • Archive 3 Referencing MySpace; Claude (inclusion or speculation?); Split proposal discussion (Superpowered & non-powered); New images for main characters and Eden.
  • Archive 4 Adding and splitting off Hana, removing unnecessary characters, Claude's first appearance.
  • Start Next

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. NBC. 2007-01-29.

--Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] contents

it's rather humourous that the contents show simply "main characters" and each minor character gets their own entry. that's how wiki works, but it looks unbalanced from an objective, unfamilar POV. i'm sure that we will fix this in time.

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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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)



[edit] 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 Hatian) 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] contents

it's rather humourous that the contents show simply "main characters" and each minor character gets their own entry. that's how wiki works, but it looks unbalanced from an objective, unfamilar POV. i'm sure that we will fix this in time.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ++ hippi ippi ++ 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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?) --Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] 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? --Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] Encounters Survey

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



The following matrix shows the first known time when each character pair meet. No future plot or future Hiro involved in this table. Hana's unilateral interception of other's communication does not count. Only physical encounter or bidirectional communication with Hana counts.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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.) --Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Tcpekin 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. --Ckatzchatspy 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_characters_in_Heroes_1f8a.html"