Talk:Sylar

Maya in the kill list?

I find it odd that we have Maya Herrera in Sylar's list of kills, if we don't have Peter Petrelli there. If Maya's on the list even after coming back to life, shouldn't Peter be there too? Sylar telepathically lifted glass and killed Peter with it. He came back, but, Maya did too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.72.77 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Peter should be on the list.Ophois (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing Cryokinesis

Yes, it may be that we don't know when he killed someone or even whom he killed but he did, indeed, kill someone for the power and it should be in the list of murders. The list is not supposed to be chronological and even if it was we can know that whomever it was was killed before Mr. Walker and after Brian Davis. I think the need for the list to remain complete outweighs the need for it to be presented in chronological order. Padillah 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It currently lists "The Hard Part" as the episode for the power. However, that's just an example of when he uses his power. He doesn't acquire it in any of the episodes or graphic novels (so far).Ophois 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the intro to the list: "People whose deaths have been linked to Sylar and their powers (if any) are listed in chronological order below."

Cryokinesis likely came from one of those people behind the frozen dead guy. To list it later and out of order is inaccurate. The power is listed in the powers/abilities section, where it should remain so long as no source for the power is given. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I think the list of powers and the list of murders are redundant. He can't get his power without murdering the person, and other killings are superfluous (killing a guy as he flipped over Ted's van isn't very plot significant). Besides the Powers and Abilities section mentions powers he's acquired scattered throughout prose, while the list of murders is much more accessible as a list of facts. I would imagine his powers are going to be looked up more than the people he killed and I see no reason why the two lists must be regarded as mutually exclusive. What info do we have that proves Chandra was killed after David but before the "Unnamed victim from Barstow"? With that in mind I see no reason to separate the lists or impose "fake" restrictions. Or take powers out of the "Murders" table and leave them to be explained in the Powers and Abilities prose. Listing some of them in both places, and leaving others out, is misleading (it misled me and I'm a contributing editor). Padillah 15:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Surviving Maya

Sylar didn't demonstrate any better ability to resist Maya's disease than any other person. The police and her friend have all survived, after much longer and greater exposure, after being "saved" by Alejandro. Alejandro can't resucitate people, only keep them from dying in the first place. If they die he's useless. In an interview with the writers at http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12002 it says as much. In any case Sylar is not exceptional for having survived, others have survived much worse. Padillah 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this alluding to?

in abilities or w/e that section is. it's a little confusing as to what this means at the end of it

"among those displayed are Candice Wilmer's power of illusion, Nathan Petrelli's flight, Claire Bennet's regeneration (which he failed to obtain originally, but acquired during the episode), and D.L. Hawkins' power of phasing."

someone should clarify this in the article please 68.185.197.67 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone is trying to mention the future episodes as much as possible. This is a "powers recap" of the future episodes and what powers Sylar acquired in both alternate futures. I don't know how much more we can support the future episodes seeing as how they've been conclusively show to have been successfully avoided. Mention in passing should be fine, we don't need to keep track of what powers he might have had in two alternate futures that will never come to pass. That's a little much. Padillah 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylars inability to use powers.

Just wondering everyones opinion on this but if Sylar couldn't use his powers before killing Candice Wilmar and then still couldn't use his abilities after, wouldn't that mean her ability was wasted? This all depends of course if him taking powers is a power itself, I mean it would have to be wouldn't it? if I killed someone and ate their brain i'm not going to gain their knowledge etc. So basically what I'm saying is if his power to take powers was not working wouldn't it mean he wouldn't have Candice's powers even if he was able to regain his preexisting ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.139.205 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't really know what's wrong with his powers yet, or how his power-absorbing method works. It's possible he does still have all his powers including Candice's, he just can't get them to work right now. Wanderer32 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that he has the Virus, thus stopping his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Her head wasn't opened either. Therequiembellishere 23:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I think Sylar is at least smart enough to know when he's successfully eaten someone's brain. He's stolen enough powers that I think he wouldn't forget how. If he tried and failed there's something wrong, not just that he forgot to open her head. The fact that he's less than affected with anything resembling the symptoms of the virus would suggest that he doesn't have the virus. He's not ill, he's not bed-ridden, nothing. So, as much as I know we hate saying this, we're going to have to wait and see what happened. We are in no hurry, we have no need to scoop anyone. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I said it was more than likely that Sylar had the Virus, and, guess what? HE HAD THE VIRUS! Damn! I hate being right all the time. Sorry Padillah, I'm sure you'll get something right eventually, just keep trying, :) .

So close, I didn't take the various strains into account. Ok, ok. :/ Padillah (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Minuteman Link

I added a Minuteman link to give background information on the "civilian border patrolmen" Sylar convinces Maya to kill and it was referred to as "an attempt to add link support to the Minuteman project." Are we not allowed to add links which will give background information on the show's elements if someone disagrees with them? I certainly dislike the Minutemen and view them as racist and repugnant, but thought that the link would add greater understanding to viewers who are unfamiliar with the border situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.208.123 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

sylars artwork

should we have a section on sylars artwork? i know there isnt much but is it notable enough for inclusion? i am just asking of course. he only did four

1. one of president in oval office
2. sylar seeing ted at kirby plaza
3. using his moms blood to make new york after explosion
4. his confrontation with peter in kirby plaza

what does everyone think?--Chrisisinchrist 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Powers and Death???

How did he survive getting impailed by Hiro? And how did he loose his powers?? 67.72.98.120 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Company helped Sylar recover. The wound rendered him unable to use his powers, though. This is covered in the article. Josh (talk | contribs) 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just have to mention, does he really get cellular regeneration? None of the other characters that have been injected with blood from healable characters have shown the ability to perpetuate that (it might be a bit much for Noah to obtain his daughter's abilities). Furthermore, Sylar gets his powers through the brain, and blood is not it. And on a more scientific note, blood is not really an adequate medium to transfer enough DNA to be amplified (Red blood cells lack nuclei). -- Permafrost 14:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not until we have a citable source. Just because som fan thinks it doesn't mean it's good enough for wiki. Padillah 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI guys, I sorted Sylar's powers into a chart list, similar to the one on Peter's page. Writing it out in paragraph format was just way way way too messy. TomUsedToBeRob (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sylar as exploding man

Is there anything that suggests that Hiro was right believing Sylar was the original exploding man? Did Peter saving Claire create a timeline in which he exploded or was it always him? The article states that the timeline was changed (68.43.199.150 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

it's a little confusing with all the time traveling going on to understand what was going on. In "Five Years Gone", everyone believes that Sylar was the "Bomb", however, it is revealed that it was in fact Peter. But which version of the timeline are we going to analyse, I personally see 3 timelines.

1. Unaltered Timeline. (Hypothetical) Sylar kills Claire at the school in texas, gains cellular regeneration, thus immediately recovers from Hiro's attack, explodes, bye bye Manhatten.

2. Altered Time Line (Portrayed in "5 years gone") Sylar fails to kill Claire at school in Texas due to the intervention of "Future" Hiro from TimeLine 1, thus is almost mortally wounded by Hiro which disrupts his powers and so he doesn't explode, but Peter explodes instead due to the stress of the incident. When Hiro from timeline 1 travelled back 5 years to give Peter the message to "Save The Cheerleader" which ultimately resulted in Sylar failing to get Claire, he changed history, so when he travelled back to the present, he re-appeared in THIS time line, instead of the one he left (1), this is why he is unaware that Claire is still alive in "5 years gone" and asks himself and Ando if they did save her.

3. Re-altered Time Line (Portrayed in the show now) Happens more or less as does timeline 2, except Nathan, due to the actions of Hiro after he returned from Timeline 2, flies Peter miles into the sky before he explodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems likely, but I don't think we have proof that the belief that it was Sylar in the original timeline was correct. He had enough control not to do it accidentally and it seems out of character to do it deliberately. We do know the timing of the explosion changed, and that in the original, Nikki wasn't present, but I don't think we can conclude anything from that 68.43.199.150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The String Theory graphic novel (#30) portrays Sylar exploding in Hiro's presence in timeline #1. There's some wiggle room I suppose but when it was released, people thought it was unambiguous enough to be considered a spoiler for the finale. 209.180.36.94 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see four, although it's actually pointless. In the second episode when Hiro goes five weeks into the future, the bomb goes off without knowing who it is, I see three key differences I see is Ando lives, Hiro is in Issac's loft, missing for five weeks, and it happens during the daytime. And the rest are as stated above. Anyhow I'm deviating from the Sylar discussion and I appologize.Akuzio 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is I suppose possible that it was never Sylar who exploded in any time line. Peter (presumably through a sense of guilt) led everyone to beleive it was Sylar, even Hiro, thus, Hiro is under the mistaken impression that saving Claire will fix the whole thing, which in a kind of indirect way, I suppose it did, but only after 2 timeline deviations had occured. You are right that Sylar appeared to have more control over the "Nuclear" power than Peter, but again, we could hypthesise that in timeline 1, Hiro's "stabbage" caused Sylar enough physical trauma before he healed to make him lose control of that ability, and cause him to explode. And Akuzio, there's no need to apologise for digressing from the topic slightly, the nature of the show and the intertwining story lines and arcs makes it almost impossible to discuss 1 subject without running into several others.

Can we lighten these pictures?

And, no, I don't mean is it possible. I mean are we allowed to or does it infringe on some type of copyright? I have PS so I can do the work, I just don't want to cause a problem. Padillah 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem personally, but I'm not a legal expert. The usage of those images does fall into the "fair use" bracket. Simply lightening them doesn't significantly change the person ot scene they depict. If however you drew Vulcan ears and a handlebar moustache on Sylar, then it might be an issue ;) . I think to be sure tho' you will need 100% legal verification on this, but i'm sure enhancement is not classed as alteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, "fair use" images are to be presented "as is", meaning without any type of modification. I can't find the proper information at the moment and im basing this just on what i remember reading when i was looking up copyright laws, and if i'm wrong someone please correct me.Akuzio (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked this question in Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions and was told it is OK to enhance an image. I think that's where the difference lays: enhancing the original image vs. changing the image to something else. Padillah (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sylar's plan

What was Sylar's plan in the final episode of Season. 1? Because I didn't understand it and the article doesn't explain what it is. It was something to do with the exploding man (whose identity seems to change like the seasons), killing Peter Petrelli and becoming president from what I can gather. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While interesting, this question really is more appropriate for a fan site than this talk page. If you have a question about the article please, feel free to ask. Padillah (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what this person meant was that the article doesn't say what his plan is. So it should be put in. Illustrious One _{(^{Recieve my Majesty})}

Oh, right. Good point. Padillah (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity what is his plan? --Illustrious One (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To take power from... those that don't deserve it and... use that power to... I don't know. Maybe that's why his plan isn't in the main article, we don't have a good handle on what it is. Padillah (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there has been anything even hinted on the show as to Sylar's overall plan. Anything you insert into the main article on that subject would surely be uncited. 80.176.233.50 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well presumably he wants to get all the powers so he can rule the world. I was wondering what his overall plan involving the exploding man was. First the thought of exploding himself and blowing up all of New York repulsed him but then he steals the brain of the exploding man and transfers the power to Peter Petrelli then tries to kill Peter, it all seems like a great deal of fuss for nothing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Candice Wilmer

Okay people, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Candice say that she can create illusions? We see her demonstrate her power all throughout season 1, and then she even states what her ability is in season 2. So, why is this being deleted repeatedly? Grey Maiden ^talk 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Sylar didn't have his powers when he killed her, so it's unconfirmed whether he actually acquired her's. Ophois (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, although we assume Sylar has recovered all of his powers, that's not yet a safe assumption, all we know for definate at this point is that he has regained telekenesis.80.176.233.50 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eidetic memory

Sylar didn't acquire her powers, after Hiro went back in time and changed her cause of death.

She died of brain cancer instead. So essentially, Sylar never got to her after Hiro modified time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.93.101 (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the citation that supports this information? QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Hiro was prevented from changing the timeline. She was still killed by Sylar. He demonstrates her power in one of the graphic novels. Ophois (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the story arc was not that charlie died. the point was, no matter what hiro did, charlie was going to die anyway. so, sylar did kill her. when hiro teleported back to modern times, history continued and sylar killed charlie. the only difference was charlie knew hiro, but she was still present at the diner to be killed. also, in graphic novel road trip, sylar uses his memory to learn how to drive a big rig. he mentions that he wants to use his new ability from charlie--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This theory has already been debunked.--Ice Vision (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Series

What is wrong with the character info being brokern down into sereis sections. (Electrobe (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

It's more appropriate to have it in volumes, as each are separate storylines. Ophois (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then rename the sections volumes rather than just undoing my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrobe (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Volume names are already listed. Ophois (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The only words i have deleated in that edit are the words character history. I also moved alternative future i cant have created mispellings if all i am doing is moving sections my copy ad pasting (Electrobe (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

The importance of "spinach"

I have noticed an unnatural obsession over the inclusion of 'spinach' as an adjective for the type of can Sylar demonstrated his regained TK on. I would like to put forth that this, while interesting to some fan speculation, is of little or no use to the article. I would like to determine a consensus and try to avert an edit war in the making. Please help me and vote. Padillah (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete - it is descriptive, but i think by adding it we my see a slippery slope start. Jmjanssen (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• remove - descriptive - yes, but something that enhances the article - no. We don't need to be adding "descriptions" that don't help the article in any way, except make an editor feel like they've done something. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh* I've given up. So, no more spinach. Adding the word spinach hasn't made me feel like I've done anything... Please don't jump to conclusions when you're looking at others' actions. --Ice Vision (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning it was a can of spinach that Sylar tested his regained powers on is worth mentioning as a simple matter of fact, however I disagree that any "Popeye-esque" significance should be stated, no matter how blatently obvious it is, it's still not citable.80.176.233.50 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It can't be that blatantly obvious, I don't get it. What Popeye reference is everyone making? What are you guys talking about? Padillah (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the last entry was supposed to be helpful. QuasiAbstract (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you thought wrong then didn't you? Spinach is what gives Popeye his superhuman strength, often, in the Popeye cartoons he has to perform some elaborate proceedure to actually get to his can of spinach, and thus, gain his "powers". To me and a lot of others, the telekentic pull of the can to Sylar's hand after which he realises his powers have returned is very clever writing. But as I have already mentioned, nothing has been published to state this was the writer's intent and so has no place in the main article (which it indeed doesn't). I think using the word "Spinach" to describe the can is not a problem, after all, that's what it was. The difference in writing "an empty can" and "an empty can of spinach" is not exactly important or overly trivial is it? If however, at some time in the future, he makers of the show admit that they were doing a parody on Popeye, then it will become something that will need to be put in the article, and the word Spinach would definately have to be used. Using it now hardly makes any difference to anything, except to pedantics. And as for something that doesn't "enchance" the article. Well sorry, but I could go through the entire article and pull out several things that offer no "enchancement" why have you all picked on a simple word like spinach? 80.176.233.50 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like someone is streching for that reference, but whatever. This was only brought on because after many reverts by many different editors, it was brought to the talk page for further discussion. It was then dropped by the original editor who wanted to add it. If you do see several things that offer no enhancement, then remove them. QuasiAbstract (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the spinach reference is indeed important. Surely the authors of the scene knew the significance of using a can of spianch. I'll dig into this a little more on the Heroes website; this hardly seems coincidental. I'm betting that sooner or later a good reference will turn up. In the mean time, why not include it? It does little to harm the article, and adds a nuance that reflects the general pop culture context of the use of the can. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S., if anyone is wondering about just how much buzz that the Spinach/Sylar connection is generating, Google brings back over 4,000 hits [1], and Sylar + popeye and eye-popping 7000 [2]. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And just for good humor, check out Sylar the Sailor, [3]--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter/Sylar's Powers: Where does one end and the other begin?

My apologies if this issue has already been covered in my absence, but a thought occurred to me. Peter's basic empathic power allows him to mimic the abilities of superpowered individuals, either through proximity or, after his training with Claude, recall. Sylar, on the other hand, physically 'steals' the powers of individuals by "eating their brains", as Molly Walker puts it. Peter has shown that he can mimic Sylar's supposed baseline power, telekinesis, (it was used against him during their confrontation in "Homecoming",) but a question comes to mind. Has it been confirmed that Peter can access a) any/all of Sylar's acquired abilities, or b) only those abilities that Sylar has used in proximity of Peter? Naturally there is going to be an overlap, but I think the question is valid. Radical AdZ (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Joe Pokaski answered this at the Wizard World Q&A session in March. There's a brief summary of his response and I can't find a working video copy of the actual Q&A anymore, but he said that just being in Sylar's presence gives him the ability to mimic any of his powers, not just the ones Sylar has demonstrated. I don't know if that summary is detailed enough to be a valid reference for this, but if someone can find a working copy of the video from the Q&A session then if I recall the answer is detailed enough. --Centish (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ticking sound

should there be a bit of information in the article regarding the out of sync ticking sound that appears in sylar's mind when he's going to kill someone, that has some relivance, doesn't it? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just the background music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.84.52 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

answering machine message

• Hiya. I know after Zach Quinto was cast as Sylar they had him rerecord the answering machine message Mohinder played earlier in the series. This rerecording can be heard on one of the flashback sequences at the beginning of a later episode (sorry, I forget which one). I don't have the DVD set, could someone who has it check back in that earlier episode and see if for the DVD set they altered the original episode to use the rerecorded one instead of Maurice LaMarche as well? --Centish (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced vs. Editic memory

Please look up eidetic memory and dispute how this is better than "enhanced" memory. Besides, "enhanced"memory is a little vague, what is enhanced about it? Eidetic memory is a superhuman ability that has never been achieved by a normal person. Padillah (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Primatechpaper.com disagrees. --Ice Vision (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Link doesn't help. I get nothing from it but a login screen I can't get past. But, if it's an official reference to the name of an ability then, by all means, use it. Don't forget to change Charlie's article too. I don't think Peter acquired it so we're OK there. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the last two numbers. Here: [4]. It looks like NBC decided to use "enhanced memory". --Ice Vision (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. "Enhanced Memory" it is then. PER Official site. Padillah (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even there it says "Also known as eidetic memory.", so that name is still valid. Wanderer32 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they refer to it as "Enhanced Memory" and leave "eidetic" as an "also known" or secondary reference. I'd love to call it "Eidetic" because that's what the condition is actually called, but I'll give in to "Enhanced" since it looks to be the main reference on an Official Site. It's not worth the war. Padillah (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is incorrect about the naming of "eidetic memory"? Just curious. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, like Wanderer32 pointed out, even the Primatech page has "also known as eidetic memory". In point of fact that's what the condition is actually called but it's not worth a war to me. Padillah (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. (And I see an edit war in progress) Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to have the listing as the one that can be linked to another article? I mean, "enhanced" doesn't really describe anything other than that it's somewhat better than regular memory. Anyone could be described as having enhanced memory, compared to someone with a bad memory. Eidetic is somewhat more descriptive. But, if everyone thinks that "enhanced" is more encyclopedic and is a better descriptor, then let's have it as enhanced. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wit'choo. The fact that "Enhanced memory" links to the article on "Eidetic Memory" makes me shake my head. But hey, if it's that important to them, let them have it. Padillah (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Sylar has Enhanced Memory. Hiro changed the past and Charlene Andrews was dead before Sylar was there. electroniXtar (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (+8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.115.22.139 (talk)

Table of murders/powers

Dwlie's edit is a notable one. Wow! Stop removing it 143.235.215.6 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The table was removed some time back after TTN did a cleanup of the article; it appeared to be a good-faith effort then, and as such I reverted the edit today, asking for discussion before it was restored. I still think discussion is merited; thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unnecessary trivia that can be found within the plot summary here if its important enough, and the episode articles if people need to know it. It'd be like making tables for his aliases, attempted murders, wounds, and other trivial things that are covered where necessary. TTN (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why I restored the table. It seems to me that information can be more useful when it is organized in different ways. I'm a visual person and the chronological table that depicts Sylar's powers and who he acquired them from is not trivial. Sifting through the narrative can be tedious. I'm not going to get into a version fight over this--it defeats the community effort and spirit of why we're here (trying to "contribute" to the body of knowledge.) Is a dictionary trivial because all the words in it can be found in other books? No, because it contributes by providing the words in an organized form. --Dwylie (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tables Back I restored the table not only for ease of organizing but also because it better mimic's Peter Petrelli's page (which reads much "cleaner"). If you guys want to fight over formatting issues, you need to rethink the information sharing nature of wikipedia. We're here to display sourced information to the best our abilities and that includes presenting it in an easy to read manner. Fight over what should be included rather than how it's included. TomUsedToBeRob (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please put the kilings he has done back on the list it is infromable and interstining- RREDD13 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Pick a name (for crying out loud)

Can we please have a discussion about how to format this person's name and alias? The two proposals on the table look like:

• Sylar/Gabriel Gray - This gives nod to the more common and arguably more character-embraced pseudonym.
• Gabriel Gray/Sylar - This gives precedence to the given name.

Please add comments regarding which is better worse or indifferent and we'll try to get this settled. Thanks for any input. Padillah (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gabriel Gray/Sylar - Gabriel is his name, Sylar is his assumed name. Now, if he never uses the name Gabriel for the rest of the series (which is quite likely), then he should be named as Sylar, but he's used his real name very recently. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sylar/Gabriel Gray - The NBC cast page credits the role as "Sylar". He may have used the name Gabriel recently but only as a means to hide. It's becoming increasing clear he regards himself as Sylar, and very few others in the series have referred to him as anything else (his mom, Maya, and Alejandro are all I can think of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say "Sylar/Gabriel Gray" (to reflect the dominant usage). FYI, this seems to have come up mostly because of one IP who has been repeatedly removing GG (as well as removing Kenzei from references to Adam Monroe) despite requests to stop. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not true at all: Super strength

Under his powers it states that he can use his telekinesis to enhance his strength. This is not true as, the instances in which he appears to have super strength he only uses his power to create the illusion that he has super strength, not to actually augment his strength. Second, there is no proof of this, we don't necessarily know all of the powers Silar has, for all we know he actually does have super strength. I'm removing this.Adroa (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous regeneration?

This was probably brought up somewhere, but I don't remember, so I'll ask anyway - Sylar has been mortally wounded several times (shot multiple times in "One Giant Leap", fell off a roof in "Homecoming", shot in "Distractions"...) How could he survive all of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.73.226 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't have spontaneous regeneration, or he wouldn't have gone after Claire. I think the official word is that, while he can be wounded, he's using his telekinesis to hold himself together. Thanks to his eidetic memory, one look through a medical textbook is all he'd need to know how to treat and repair his injuries. Wanderer32 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He did kill Peter Petrelli by telekinetically thrusting a shard of glass into his head (he came back to life when it was removed) so he could've absorbed Peter's regeneration (which he in turn had obtained from Claire) then. It's all speculation though. Digifiend (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How could he have gotten it from Peter? He didn't remove his brain. Ophois (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Freezing

Sylar killed molly walker's father (or mother?) for the ability of freezing. He has used it on several occasions, like just before he killed his mother (he frose water into snow and levitated it) or (i think) when facing off against future peter. Timebender13 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did you see this? We know he killed the Walkers but we've never been able to prove he got the freezing power from Molly's father or mother or if he got it from some unnamed individual before he even got to the Walkers. If you've got some kind of citation let's see it so we can end this. That'd be great. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Eden's voice

Hi, I've started watching Heroes late, but one thing I noticed towards the end of season one was that before Sylar kills Isaac, he uses Eden McCain's voice to command him to do something (show him a particular picture, I think it was). The same sound effect that was placed on Eden's 'command' voice was used, but it's implied from Eden's final scene that she shot herself to deny Sylar her power.

So, what do we think? Is this just a continuity error, or was Sylar able to take Eden's voice regardless of the bullet wound?217.207.239.245 (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's neither, Tim Kring has said the voice effect was exactly that, a Dramatic Effect. He just did it because it sounded cool, nothing more. Sylar is not believed to have obtained Edens power (several people are casting aspersions about Peter, but Sylar has been ruled out). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternate future

Why exactly was the alernate future section removed a while ago? Other articles such as Peter Petrelli and Angela Petrelli have sections about the alternate timelines. Ophois (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm all for taking the bloody things out. Not that I removed it but it was the plot of one episode and has not been revisited for an entire season. Yes, there are indications that the future will be revisited this season but there is no indication that it will be the one that was left in season one. In fact the point of season one was that the future that was depicted will not come to pass now. So, between it's limited exposure and the fact that it has been rendered moot I don't see why we have sections devoted to it. I say get rid of it altogether, in all the articles. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

demonic voice

any one else notice that sometimes his voice takes on a distorted, alsmost demonic tone in some instances, like before he killed the car mehcanic for he super hearing she said "whats that sound?" and he said "murder!" in a warped tone, there have been other instances too, is this a power, or just dramatic effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.127.90 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check the archives you will see everyone has noticed it. It has been described by Tim Kring as artistic license. I believe his direct quote was "It sounded cool". Should we make mention of this in the article if we're just going to get asked this over and over? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Absorbed isn't the word to use

I believe the word to use is acquire. Absorb is more for peter.