Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Searching for Heroes

Does it make sense to anyone that there is a redirect from Heroes to Hero and that the Hero page links to a rather crowded disam page? I'm not sure how to correct this problem, but it seems to me that the current behavior is not very useful to users who may be searching for this page. How should this be corrected? Erechtheus 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made it so that typing in heroes now redirects to the disambiguation page rather than the the Hero article. I feel this makes far more sense. Kamikaze Highlander 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree.Transcendentalstate 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Pursuant to Wikipedia:External Links, I have deleted the fansite, message board, and blog links. A link to one fansite or one directory of fansites might be appropriate. Please do not re-add this melange of improper links again. Erechtheus 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Added 9th Wonders as the "Official/Unofficial Fan Site" in keeping with Wikipedia:External Links which says "including a link to one major fansite is appropriate". This appears to be a major fansite as it has exclusive information from cast and creators/writers. Some writers also appear to be on the message boards here. --Ollie 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I know there have been a lot of problems with the external links, but 9th Wonders does seem like it should be included (see my above post). Anyone care to comment on whether they agree/disagree? Ollie 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, 9thW is AFAIK the biggest fansite and some of the show's cast post there. -- Whysquared 08:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the introduction on 9thW is written by the show's writer, Tim Kring, and is therefore a valid external link for the TV Show. User:Gr8Koogly 19:48PM, October 9, 2006 (UTC)

Possible error in Information

Possible Spoilers Below (not sure of the protocol on a discussion page but have put this anyway

Having seen the pilot I would question some of the information given on the page - In particular listing the character of Peter Peterelli as a hero with the ability to fly; as, in the pilot, he only dreams of flying and in fact when he attempts to fly later it is his brother who saves him by flying. So it is unclear as to whether his character will fly, but as of the pilot he certainly doesn't.

I changed the table to match the Pilot information, and added a spoilers warningTranscendentalstate 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the citation source for Peter's Power in the table ("Psychic Connection" and "precognition")? It seems to be derived from what can be seen in the pilot but not actually based on any solid information. I propose either changing it to "undetermined" or perhpas noting that this is information is "speculation". --Ollie 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ollie. I thought that Peter was attempting suicide by jumping off a building when he discovered he can fly. Until either way is dertermined, Ollie's suggestions make sense.Lobot72 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which brother?

I notice some odd and increasingly frequent switching between the Petrelli brothers powers. Is this just people who've seen the ads, not the pilot or another case of last minute changing like with the usage of that Batman Begins track? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the pilot; (at the risk of the spoiler in question) the candidate has the flight skills, contrary to what the promos imply. Mhking 03:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the pilot, the candidate can fly. The nurse has a supernatural connection to the brother... and maybe the rest of them as well. I'd say its best as undetermined.

Peter's power should be listed as "unspecified" I think. Preview information implies he has something going on, but we don't know what.

I agree - N/A means "not applicable".. should be unspeciified.. EDIT: nevermind, I like what you changed it to as of 26 September 2006 better! Mark 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Peter shoul not be listed as unspecified.From the pilot we know that he has a connection with his brother.It should be left like that.

I just saw a commercial for upcoming episodes, and it does show Peter flying, along with his brother. Indel 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed Peter's superpower back to flight, he flew in the latest episode. CTVampSlayer 9:56 02 October 2006 (UTC)

According to an article in TVGuide magazine, dated October 9-15, 2006, Peter Petrelli has the ability of absorb the others' superpowers. Green Herring 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's confirmed that Peter can fly. But he also has some precognitive ability. bluemonq 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter's power is more along the lines of empath or mimic. He can definitely fly when he's around his brother. But he also drew the final scene in the second episode. He was in the hospital after a bad fall, and probably on some kind of opiate for pain management. Notice that Isaac has to be doped up on heroin (another opiate) before his precog abilities come into play. When Peter drew the picture, it was after he came into contact with Issac. My best guess is that Peters powers stem from some kind of psychic link that he can establish with people he comes into contact with. I think it is more emotional than physical. Remember he said that when his dad died, he sat bolt upright in bed? Sdp4408 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Global / CH?

What is the point in the Global CH thing? Why does it matter that the show is airing on Global and CH television networks, when the show isn't even produced by them? It't not really target to a Canadian audience anyways. 24.36.231.48 16:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. This is one Canadian looking forward to the show. Also, it is being shown in Canada, ergo, it is targeting a Canadian audience. See how that works? --64.180.243.73 09:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The show wasn't on Global or CH last night. I'm removing the reference. JohnnyB 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I actually e-mailed them to ask which network it was on. Perhaps their reply will clear up the confusion. NorthernThunder 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The show is now running on Global in the same time slot as NBC, although it didn't debut at the same time. JohnnyB 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Added spoiler warning

I added a spoiler warning that is common on Wikipedia for television shows that haven't yet or are currently airing. Spoiler will need to be removed after the series finale, whenever that is.Lobot72 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Niki's alter ego

When the show airs the speculation that Niki's alter ego is a villian will need to be either confirmed or removed if that assumption is wrong.Lobot72 21:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done; Removed. That shouldn't be there anyway. Thanks for bringing it up. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


The woman in the mirror is certainly an independant agent, but with an unclear agenda. She could have buried the bodies herself, but instead laid the ground work and let the other niki do it. Her actions seem to be for the sake of the deleterious effect they have on Niki, rather than for the woman in the mirror's own benefit. A distinct and hostile personality would seek to preserve the status quo, or preserve the host until such time as it could take over altogether. The actions so far seem counterproductive to its long term interest as a parasite personality.

Tbmorgan74 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Why was the term doppelgänger removed from Niki's section? It gets the point across and is way less wordy than what's there now. Ozmodiar.x 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Niki has a doppelganger. A doppelganger is an evil twin, and Niki seems to have split personalities. It could also be that a Niki from an alternate universe can inhabit Niki's body, but until more is reveal about Niki we should probably leave off the doppelganger. Lobot72 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Niki's abilities displayed so far seem more like a version of Randy from DP7 (comics). In DP7, Randy could project a dark form of himself that was completely autonomous and could wreck havoc, without him consciousness wanting to. Initially, it only fully manifested while he was asleep. EvilCouch 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative Man from Doom Patrol has a similar power. 75.21.125.177 09:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In the fourth episode, Collision, it's been shown that Niki's altar ego is clearly not a separate physical entity but a different personality that manifests when she is under stress. It appears to exhibit heightened strength, though not beyond normal human limits. Her strength and aggression could possibly be from increased adrenaline. Would it be appropriate to change her power to something along the lines of "Alternate personality accompanied by hormone changes?" Briham 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unable to find it

It says in the article that the pilot was made available on iTunes as a free download on the first of September; however, I have been looking there since then and have been unable to find it. Is it on there and I'm not looking in the right place, or is it not on there yet and there is a factual error in the article? Please help... 71.193.74.50 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the section. It's a crosspromotion. I take it you didn't see a movie first. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for clearing that up. 71.193.74.50 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Character superpower

"Niki Sanders 33 Female Las Vegas Cam Girl "Powerful alter-ego""

Wouldn't a better description for her superpower be astral projection? I have only seen the NBC advertisement, but, it seems like that is what she does. NorthernThunder 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nein. "virtual reality projection" the closet related form of astral projection I can find, still features the same underlying constant of astral projection: one person. The term "Alter-ego" is being used loosely. Niki and Mirror Niki seem to be distinct individuals. The possibility Mirror-Niki could have killed whilst Niki is innocent should be a good indicator of that. Hers will certainly be the trickiest of powers to get a lock on. Heck, they may have just created it as a Heroes original. (I didn't see the pilot yet, either, so I'm working from the ads, too.) ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've currently changed it to "unspecified" and corrected the other powers with appropriate links, as they once were. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Niki's power seems rather... 'interesting,' in its own respect... here's a thought to ponder, though: maybe she has a sort of 'Jekyll and Hyde' Complex going on with her power. At least, that's how it appears to me. --12.153.193.194 02:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What the...?

Check the edit history, I've been a faithful editor helping to keep this page sane and you lock me out!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.161.74 (talkcontribs) at 02:20, September 26, 2006

Chill out, dude. First off, try registering. It's not enough to just edit pages. You should really use an account. Second, the page was semi-protected to prevent various users, well intentioned or otherwise, from doing damage to the page. Believe me, it's better this way...for the time being.
If you need any advice, contact me. Oh and BTW, sign your comments. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BS

Check this out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6739710473912337648 In the premier of Heroes it two asian kids in red jerseys singing the same song. There's got to be some connection. Do you think it's on the show because of this clips popularity on the internet? Whatever it is, it needs to be on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.20.31 (talkcontribs) 06:24, September 26, 2006

Add new comments to the bottom of the page. Now, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't warrant inclusion in the article. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe those are the Back Dorm Boys, and should at least be given a reference in the Trivia section.

Preferred format for episode synopsis?

Hey, peeps. Toquinha here, I wrote the first version of the Heroes pilot episode. Is there a preferred format for the way it is written? As the show tends to evolve around several characters, it seemed appropriate to group each one appropriately by character. This may not necessarily work for later episodes, though, although it seemed to work best here. Any other comments? Toquinha 14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply writing based on the time of events would be more appropriate. The characters will eventually be meeting and certain events were already being experienced by multiple persons. I was considering a full rewrite of that...if you'll excuse me, mess when I had more time. So, "no" to seperating characters. It confuses the timeline and makes it harder to mention certain events. Besides, summaries like that are what character articles are for. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

More possible trivia

The co-composers of the show's music, Wendy Melvoin and Lisa Coleman, were members of The Revoultion, Prince's band during the Purple Rain era.

Also for more trivia about similarities with other works, the comic book "The Strangers", an Ultraverse comic book by Malibu comics depicts a group of people riding a trolly when being struck by lightning from the moon. They gain super powers and spend some time getting used to them. Not everybody on the trolly follows the path of good. Thought I'd mention it.

For what it's worth, as of October 6th, 2006, Heroes has been green-lighted (green lit?) for a full season (22 episodes)[[1]] --DJ Chair 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Marcopogo stole my thunder (<sad>) but we should still add a citation to his remark of the full 22 episodes.

Main characters

I think the antagonist and th Indian guy, I don't remember his name, should be added to the list of main characters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolugomi (talkcontribs) at 00:13, September 27, 2006

What? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)



The antagonists' character name is officially (for the script?), i believe, "horn rimmed glasses" and the actor's name is Jack Coleman (see his wikipedia and imdb page). Not sure how to fix the formatting but I put the names in there.Meo6e 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


The song during the eclipse is : Eyes by Rouge Wave

Wouldn't it be wiser to replace the "location" column with "origin"? The characters might be going around to different locations in the world as the series progresses and this information might be confusing. --Pinkkeith 18:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable idea, I'd second it. --DJ Chair 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I went ahead and changed it. Kafziel Talk 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please revert the "location" column back to "origin"? Someone changed it over the weekend, and I thought it had been agreed upon (granted by a small number of us) that origin made more sense then location. --DJ Chair 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Be Bold. Stop asking for someone to change it for you. Just do it. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Until just now, I couldn't. I've only been a user for a couple of weeks and the page was blocked for editing by new users. --DJ Chair 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank heaven for small miracles. It's "Place of origin" now, as it should be, if anything. The relavence of that whole column is dubious, however. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertising section

I removed it, since the show has aired. All the advertisements were to hype the show, and that's it. It's pretty pointless to leave it on the article still. RobJ1981 04:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Claire's Occupation

Shouldn't Claire's occpuation be listed as high school student as opposed to high school cheerleader? I know this may be nit-picky, but I think it would be a better description.

Micah Sanders

The article says he's fairly smart. Fairly? Isn't he a super genius?

He may or may not be, he is smarter. But want and see how smart before calling him a super genius!--Brown Shoes22 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't he actually be one of the main characters? --Pinkkeith 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
it's difficult to say as of yet, granted he's listed on IMDB (which grants him a little more credibility then the "Horn Rimmed Glasses" guy, but since the show is about the heroes (and he hasn't yet shown any powers, besides his mother's opinion of his intellect) maybe he shouldn't get a billing as a main character just yet. Although, if he starts having more then a couple of words per episode of dialect, then I'd be willing to reconsider. --DJ Chair 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put much credibility into IMDb. Still, every source I find seems to list Noah (Micha's actor) and Tawny (Simone's) in the cast, and first by alphabetical last name listing methods. Nevertheless, DJ and I are in agreement. However Micah's actor mau be listed, the character has been minor/supporting so far. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Micah may not have a large number of lines, but he's going to be a main character in the show. Remember that Matt/Greg Grunberg didn't even show up until the second episode, and D.L. still hasn't shown up in the show. Beyond what it says in the IMDb, Micah and Simone are also in main character publicity stills and have entries on the NBC offical website cast page. Simone even has her own character page there, and Micah has a page in the code (it redirects to the NBC main page, but other names just 404).
At the very least, Simone should be a main character. Micah should too, or else we should move D.L. down to the supporting characters. I'm going to go ahead and move Micah and Simone up to main characters. SuperJerms 08:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


The article says that Micah's powers are unknown, but from what I've seen I don't think he has any powers, so shouldn't the article say none? Lobot72 01:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it says something in TV Guide about Micah having powers. See the Talk:Heroes (TV series)#TVGUIDE citation! section on this page. Also, I moved your question to this section since we already had one on Micah. Hope you don't mind. --Aldryd 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And actually we have heard that he has at least one power. He told his mother that he "rebuilt his computer's motherboard". I'm pretty sure that would be impossible. DavidJohns 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your right and his powers will show up later. According to my Tivo's description of next week's episode called "Collision", it say's,"Suresh locates a genetically advanced superman." So maybe there will be new heroes added and some of the current character's powers will be revealed as the show progresses. The next episode after that is called "Hiro's" and the description say's, "The police arrive on Niki's doorstep, looking for her fugitive husband; Claire confesses to her father; Hiro and his friend get jumped. Lobot72 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't see this topic (please read the topic i started below regarding what I believe might possibly be Micah's powers)4.172.237.137 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In episode 4, Micah talks to Niki about her performing on internet webcam sites and Niki seemed shocked, as if she didn't know how he knew. Though there is the chance that he just overheard about it somewhere, is there a chance that he has some sort of power that could sense what she did (possibly similar but not exactly like Matt's telepathic abilities?) 4.172.237.137 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

mechanical/electronic empathy? like kaylee in firefly --Sdp4408 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say it's more likely that he's just not an idiot. His mother has an "office" in the garage he isn't allowed in. It's not hard to imagine he's looked in through a window out of curiosity. His mothers friends are pretty obviously other webcam girls, prostitutes, and what have you. It wouldn't be hard to figure out what was going on, especially since his mother "works nights" and has no visible means of financial support. Quite frankly, I think Micah just put two and two together as anyone would. And since the hints for any power he has seem to lend themselves towards above average intelligence, isn't it even MORE likely he's just not stupid? :P Nezu Chiza 06:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think intelligence can be considered a super power, unless he is inventing things like rayguns, teleporters and jetpacks. If being smart is a super power then they should have Stephen Hawking and Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings on as super heroes. Lobot72 06:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Online comics !

The Online comics is seen in the hands of Micah Sanders (Niki's young son) !--Brown Shoes22 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is The Online comics is it with a artcle ?--Brown Shoes22 23:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Or a section ?--Brown Shoes22 14:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this isn't really related to the original post under this section, but I cleaned up the Online Comic section. I added the writer and the artist of each issue and added that they are drawn by Aspen Comics. --Pinkkeith 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Geek is not a profession.

Please remove Geek from Hiro's occupation.

Looks like someone did. Applegamer 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The brothers

Why does it mention that both of the brothers possess "flight", watching the pilot there seems to be no indication that Peter can actually fly. Whysquared 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and questioned this. Peter thought he could fly, but it seems his brother is the one with the ability from footage seen so far. My wife suggests that maybe it's in an official release or trailer somewhere we haven't seen. --RickMeasham 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Indel in the Which brother section, there is a commercial for the next show where Peter is seen flying. --Aldryd 14:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Listing the power as flight off of a commercial is silly. We've already seen the character have "dreams" of flying, a quick clip depicting the character in flight on a commercial shouldn't be enough to warrant its inclusion in the list. His powers could be ANYTHING at this point. He's empathetic to the extreme and can sense his brother and has dreams of flying (which is a power his brother does seem to have) - we could guess and guess and guess about exactly what his powers are. But until they are revealed its just plain wrong to list his powers as anything concrete. 128.227.8.185 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should leave his power as unspecified, unknown, or the "psychic connection to his brother" until an episode airs which specifies his actual power. Since this one has been a highly contested power, I'll leave it for now until maybe we can come to a consensus about it. Maybe we can at least agree to leave it "unspecified" until they give more detail on another episode. --Aldryd 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, until it actually airs in an episode we can't really say anything about it. -- Whysquared 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the powers should be left as unspecified for both Peter and his brother. It is possible that the power is levitation (and not flight - often confused) and that Peter actually has the power (controling his brother to "fly" up to save him because he views his older brother as his protector). -arrow61095 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear now that Peter's power is borrowing other's powers. Think Rogue in X-Men. That would explain his flying at the end of his fall and the precognition of the roof top scene after coming into contact with the artist. Now the question is; can we sum that up in a couple of words? Verve rat 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We have to wait until the series actually comes out and says it. So far, all that can be verified is that he can fly. Kafziel Talk 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont think theres enough evidence to support that Peter can take other peoples powers becouse he has only come in contact with one other superpowerd person. Also with most superhereos who can take other peoples powers, they only have it for a short time, and yet peter levitated at the end of the second episode withought any contact with his brother.
He's come in contact with two people. The painter and his brother. Evidence of the Painters powers show up after he flies, becuase we see a napkin with the same scene, only drawn as stick figures. As for his Flight, I'm sure his brother made some contact with him while he was in the hospital, and, if not, he did have a long contact with him when he jumped in the first episode. I think that the ammount of time he touches someone is the ammount of time he has the powers, so to speak. --Link43130 10:52, 3 October, 2006 (UTC)
Or it could be that his powers are like Mimic's in that he can temporarily or even permanently absorb a person's power just by being close to them. --ScorpSt
I know it's speculation, but I bet this is why Sylar is eating people's brains; he has the same power as Peter, and has found that eating brains makes the power transfer permanent. Or, he's just psychotic.64.247.206.184 18:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter's brother was present the second time Peter levatated on the roof. Lobot72 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"I want it that way" in 1x01

In the Tokyo bar scene in Ep 1x01 two guys in basketball shirts are singing "I want it that way" .. are they the same two guys made famous on YouTube a while back singing the same song? --RickMeasham 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This video --RickMeasham 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial Links between Characters?

Should there be a separate section for this, for at least the time being? For instance, interesting to note that Hiro's co-worker Ando was viewing Niki's site. If you advance frame by frame, you'll see the page on the screen for a split second just disappearing, courtesy of some rapid clicking.bluemonq 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it list Mohinder suresh as having unknown powers

During the pilot there was no evidence that Mohinder has or will have any powers, so why is he listed as unknown. It probebly say N/A or none becouse it looks like he could just be finishing his fathers work withought any any powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.26.231 (talkcontribs) at 18:01, 30 September 2006

Bobby Lee?

He isn't in the show, why is he in the "Starring..." list?--BGOATDoughnut 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Not sure why it was changed - either vandalism or just confusion I guess. :) --Aldryd 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it was confusing me a little, and, apparently, I can't edit this page, so I couldn't take action.--lolicontributed 02:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither could I. I have question regarding that, what's an established user? Established user for all of Wikipedia in general or just this article? UnDeRsCoRe 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
A registered user with a notible amount of edits and history. (Like...five hundred over a month.) It's one reason to register (early) and get/stay active. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You just have to have a four-day-old account. That counts as established. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had mine since June, I make a reasnable amount of edits so well, I guess I'm establised. Yeah :p! UnDeRsCoRe 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Different versions of 1x01?

I just watched a rebroadcast of the first episode. I notice that a number of plot points mentioned in articles on some of the characters differ from what was broadcast. For example, the article on Claire mentions her talking her to mum over dinner about the fire, and later talking about her being adopted. Neither scene was in the episode that I saw, nor was there any sign of Greg Grunberg's character. Can anyone confirm if the rebroadcasts were edited down -- or is the information included in these articles based upon the reportedly 2-hour pre-broadcast version of the episode that was making the rounds? If this is the case, this has to be noted in the articles otherwise it'll confuse people. 23skidoo 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the rebroadcast, but I do know that Greg Grunberg's character didn't appear in the original broadcast. Also, Claire was definitely shown talking to her mom about the fire as well as mentioning to her about being adopted in the original broadcast. --Aldryd 02:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Did this discussion occur in the kitchen during the same scene where Claire puts her hand in the garbage disposal? If it didn't, then the scene was definitely cut from the broadcast I saw tonight. 23skidoo 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The original premiere had limited commercial interruptions and was i think 50+ minutes long. If the rebroadcast had normal commercial breaks, it probably would have been closer to 45 minutes and thus had removed footage.Confucious 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I watched the USA Network's rebroadcast of the premiere episode. Claire's discussions with her mother about the fire and being adopted were indeed edited out. Also, Peter's conversation in the cab with Mohinder was edited down significantly. Michael.douglas.dean 08:54, 3 October 2006
The first time it was aired it was with limited comercial interuption, thus they could fit more material into on "TV hour." All subsequent showings were showed with regular comercial interuption making it necessary to cut content to fit the episode into the TV hour. 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Another similar work

Several people have told me that the show is similar to my own series of short stories dealing with people with unique abilities. I can't provide widespread proof at the moment, because my story is witha publisher right now being reviewed, but I can email a couple chapters to anyone interested. They were available online for quite a while, which may lend credibility to the theory... Personally, I think the similarities are insusbstantial (my first chapter is about a kid who can fly and dreams about it, and it ends there, pretty much) and coincidental, but it might be worth noting. Not that I'm noteworthy. Email me if you're interested. Buddy13 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool. If you ever get your work distributed, feel free to mention it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The flying as dream is pretty common. Neil Gaiman did it in a promo 8 pager for Sandman, and it's occurred in many other places. Still, best of luck to the publishing chances. ThuranX 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the value of the "Similarities to other works" section?

I've just watched the first episode off of TiVo and came to this article for the first time to look something up, and I have a question: What exactly is the encyclopaedic value of the lengthy [Similarities to other works] section? My best guess is that it's fancruft that inspired this subsection more than any particular desire to enhance the factual basis of the article.

If the creators of the show have said in interviews that this or that source inspired them, then by all means cite that interview, but as it stands now this is Original Research, i.e. drawing comparisons between this show and other fictional works which may not be anything more than coincidence. -Markeer 01:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking the same time the way it piled up. Still, the similarity alone is notible. Maybe I'll remove the section and make a category for them all. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiro

Is it worth noting that Hiro/Hero is a less than subtle naming choice, not unlike Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, and it's lead character, Hiro Protagonist. I'm not sure how or if this is article-worthy, but perhaps consensus can give us an idea? ThuranX 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's not the star,—like...on a title character level—but it is a very likely they didn't just pick the name at random. Still, that's more of aa thing for the character article, not here. Also, it's close an that insultingly obvious realm where making a note might seem redundant or otherwise unnecessary. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned in the main character article and the online graphic novel (which I'm pretty sure is canon), Hiro is derived from "Hiroshima". --Toquinha 06:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylar

in the second episode "Syler" is mentioned a lot, i think its obvious he's got some sort of power, should we add an article or name, or wait for more info? And what about that one girl who's with mohinder? Royboy5371 02:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the episode. Apparently, this "Syler" guy seems to have the ability to freeze people, or lobotomize them. Also, he seems to have a connection with Mohinder's father, appearing on the answering machine.--68.90.60.104 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We should include Siler, and check his spelling, with a citation back here in the talk for how to spell it. He's apparently either cryokinetic or cryoprojective, but definitely powered, based on his recorded assertions that the Professor made him that way. ThuranX 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As per page 3 of Monsters, the online comic NBC.com releases with each episode debut, the spelling is Sylar. Now to figure out what he's about. ThuranX 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling it has something to do with lobotomy. The guy that was killed in the 2nd episode (when Matt finds the girl) was lobotomized. The detectives said a guy named "Sylar" had something to do with it. Also, lobotomy pops up again in the 2nd episode, when Hiro finds Isaac dead on the floor in his jump to the future.--68.90.60.104 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylar may be working alone, but looking at the wrecked car in the comic and the body of the mother on the wall in the second episode, there might be evidence of another character with superhuman strength. I could be wrong. -InsaneZeroG 03:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

so add sylar or not? if yes then where? 216.114.214.59 04:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Already added him, with the more obvious and forgivable speculation. I'll correct the spelling. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I know that Sylar is now listed on the main page, which is good seeing as he'll most likely be the antagonist to this story, but I really don't think that giving him "Patient Zero" is right. Hear me out, I know that the professor called him that, but from my research, the term Patient Zero refers to the central or initial patient in the population sample of an epidemiological investigation. Is this an epidemiological investigation? --DJ Chair 20:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Sylar can be given two possible powers: Telekinesis and Cryokinesis. It is evident in the scene with the detectives that the murdered woman was somehow lifted and then impaled with multiple knives. Although it could be a sign of super strength, telekinetic levitation followed by a barrage of mind-flung kitchen knives is more likely. It also appears that brains are only consumed from frozen victims leading me to believe that Sylar slows their molecules to the point of freezing with his telekinetic powers. (cryokinesis is the proper term)AuspexAO 05:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, WTF happened? When did Sylar get all these new powers? The new ep, I assume. Still, the way it's being written up...yikes. I reverted it for now. (God...being on the west coast can really suck ass.) ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tonight, 9 Oct. And I wrote it up exactly as it appeared, without speculation into Sylar's power, though it's probably telekinesis at a molecular level, given his freezing abilities, and the fact that no one yet in the show has truly diverse, unthemed powers. ThuranX 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylar may also have the ability of mind control. The scene where the detective confronts him and he makes her put her gun to her own head may be evidence of this, but it could also be just telekinesis. Sylar also survived being shot multiple times by the mind reading cop. This could just be that he stopped the bullets with telekinesis, or he has a healing factor like the cheerleader or Wolverine, or he is more like Superman and bullets bounce off him. Lobot72 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare it to superman - he was dropped by the gunshots, and when he stood up you can hear the 'plink' of the bullets hitting the ground. Perhaps he was able to pull the bullets out of himself? That in turn might suggest a similar healing factor, but invulnerability? I don't really think so. I have a feeling if he was shot from behind he would've been done for.Knightrojen 07:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible that Sylar has the ability to absorb others powers, similar to petrelli's power mimicery, but involving in some way the victims brain. this would explain his map and research into those with special powers and also why he attacked issac.

(formerly from archive 2)

Weird symbol

I noticed this at about halfway through the episode, but there's a symbol that reoccurs every time Syler is connected. The genome on the computer, the arrangement of pool toys at the murder scene,and the paintings when Hiro arrives at Isaac's place. It seems to resemble this . Is their any clue as to what pertinance this has so far? -InsaneZeroG 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

well, in Mathematics, that's the symbol for a 'function', that is a particular equation, or manipulation ofthe numbers. I'd say hold off a bit until there's either production based quotes or more episodes to reveal it. ThuranX 03:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, his message on Mohinder's father's answering machine says that he now has a purpose, which can technically be a "function". Maybe this killing is his "function". Also, notice how the people he kills have some sort of a relationship to the "Heroes". Isaac himself was a "hero". The genome on the computer was related to Mohinder's father, who researched the "heroes". Also, the murder scene involved Matt, a telepathic "hero".--68.90.60.104 03:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The significance of each victim is relative. I'm almost certain Sylar didn't kill the guy at the scene Matt was in so that a "hero"—let alone Matt, specifically—would find him. We don't know for sure how Chandra—Mohinder's dad—died. Amd no offense to mister Mendez, but Isaac seems like easy prey. This is what I'd called speculative and circumstantial. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A symbol, which looks like an elongated 'S' with small lines drawn extending from the inside of it, two on one half of the S and one on the other half.

It's not the . If you'll look closely at it you'll notice it has two lines on the bottom curve making it look more like a strand of RNA. It's all over the place if you watch for it. It's been seen in atleast six places in the second episode. Anyways, My feeling is that we should wait till it atleast appears in another episode before it's added to the actual page. The better bard 07:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Heroes Symbol" is first shown in the second episode of the series - Don't Look Back. We first glimpse it at the top right corner of the paper Peter is drawing on at the hospital. Afterwards we see it again at Isaac's work space, when Hiro walks in searching for him. There are many paintings of it hanging around the whole work space. Next, the symbol shows up, on an attached note on the map at Mohinder's apartment (originaly rented out by his father, Chandra Suresh) while he and Eden look at it, and, most significantly, in ASCII Art form, in the code of Mohinder's father's computer program, supposebly devised to help in finding anyone who might possibly have "special abilities". Lastly, still on the second episode, we see it shapped by a hose and what seem to be pieces of paper attached to the hose, in the swimming pool at the scene where Matt and the police squad investigate the supposed missing girl and her murdered parents.

The significance of this symbol is still not clear at the end of the second episode, but it is obviously attached to these special characters. While some may think that it is related to the character Sylar, due to its similarity to the letter "S" (a signature symbol), this does not appear to be the case, since it has shown up in many places, not only those directly connected to him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan Pendragon (talkcontribs) at 20:48, October 7, 2006

Uh..kayy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, it's not just in murder scenes. It appears on the 9th Wonders comic Hiro picks up at the newsstand, on a post-it note placed on Mohinder's board, and in the code scrolling through the computer program.SuperJerms 22:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, It's now been all over the place in two episodes. I think that makes it significant enough to have some mention in the article. Hopefully someone better at coding and writing could edit it in or something. The better bard 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch the symbol too much in the second episode, but in the third one it was all over the place. It will have to be mentioned somewhere even if it is just trivial information. As of right now, we don't know what it means. --Pinkkeith 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice that the character labeled "Mysterious Associate" on this page was wearing a pendant with that symbol on it? We only saw it briefly, but I think that it was there. Isn't it possible that he's Sylar?

Sylar appears to be white. Sorry. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that it is possible that Sylar's powers include the ability to change his appearance? The character in the bar in the end of chapter 3 definitely has the symbol on his necklace, and is also apparently able to block his thoughts from being "read". Another place that the symbol appears is on Claire's geometry book.Eightysix 08:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have a picture of it? The page would certainly benfit from a picture of it. JQF 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a good one that my buddie made but I have no clue about Wikipedia's image rules or anything, Here's the Image. But if you want a screen cap I could find find one of those too.The better bard 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll put it up in a sec. JQF 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Isaac's power

Isaac Mendez: The character chart says his precognition is "drug-induced." However, I haven't seen anything that indicates his drug addiction and his powers are related.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.31.12 (talkcontribs)

  1. In episode one, he says that he didn't remember painting them.
  2. When he paints the explosion picture, he is on an overdose of heroin.

That enough for you?--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not enough for me. Putting two and two together might make sense, but it's still original research if there's no source for the conclusion. Kafziel Talk 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's in the episode. Besides, he also says in the first episode he is going to quit cold turkey to stop him from making paintings, so it is basically confirmed.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "basically confirmed". There's verifiable, and there's original research. It could just as easily be concluded that the heroin only caused the darker visions; he didn't complain about painting Peter flying, or Hiro's adventures in New York. Or it could be said he thought the heroin had something to do with it; no one in the show fully understands the source of their powers yet, so there's no reason to assume he has all the answers about his visions. The article should state what has been explicitly shown, and nothing more. Kafziel Talk 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For arguments sake, it should be noted, that the use of heroin is likely a booster to his powers. While he may or may not have used when painting Hiro or Peter's successful use of power he may need that extra 'kick' to unlock the really powerful stuff. --DJ Chair 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
He might. Or he might not. It's unverifiable either way. We'll have to see what future episodes say. Kafziel Talk 17:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
He has stated that he painted them while high, and that if he goes cold turkey, the paintings will stop. That is enough. The character is describing a direct relationship between producing the future-indicative paintings while using the drugs. While we may find that he has other ways of inducing the prophetic works after he quits using, IF he quits, for now we have the charcter's own causative statements, which are enough. ThuranX 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. He said he painted the train wreck and the explosion while high. He didn't say he painted the portraits of Peter or Claire while high, and he certainly didn't say anything about scripting and illustrating an entire comic book about Hiro (as he was dead before he could explain). Also, the character's own statements are not enough, because (as I said) nobody yet understands the causes of their powers. He's an unreliable source. Kafziel Talk 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, the little stick figure sketch in episode 2 occurs in the hospital some time after his overdose; can we not assume that he isn't high at that time?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemonq (talkcontribs) at 20:44, October 3, 2006
That was Peter. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, wasn't paying close enough attention; this sort of thing happens when you're studying for a midterm =P bluemonq 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, everyone, chillax. For the record, official press releases state outright that Isaac, and I quote, "can paint the future when he's high". There's no mistake. This was official before the series ever debuted. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Got a source for that? You can't have a quote without a source. I searched Google for your quote and came up with one hit, a blog. Of the two official sources listed in the article, one doesn't mention it and one is a dead link. I haven't said anywhere that it definitely isn't so; what I'm saying is that it needs a solid cite from a reputable source. That's not negotiable; it's policy, not just some random thing I came up with. Kafziel Talk 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You wanna cite Peter's flight and Claire's healing factor, too? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to cite Isaac's ability to predict the future. Just the conclusion that he needs to be on heroin to do it. If you said Claire needed to be wearing her cheerleader outfit in order to use her healing ability, then yes, I'd ask for a source for that, too. Listen, this isn't a matter for debate and certainly not for argument. If someone asks for a source, it needs to be provided. In this case, more than one person has. Absolutely every statement on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, and I haven't been able to verify this one. If a source can't be provided, it's original research. If a source can be provided, then somebody needs to do it. Kafziel Talk 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kafziel. I don't think the drugs cause the power. I think at this point the drugs may help while he is still learning about this power, but in the end I think we'll see that he can do it without drugs. So I don't think it is necessary to connect drugs to the powers, yet it can be mentioned on his page about him being a drug addict and how he thinks the drugs induce this power. Stetsonblade

Isaac's Occupation; Niki's relation to D.L.

Should someone add to Isaac's occupation, "Writer"? I was watching it again online, and in the comic that Hiro was reading, the back lists Isaac as a writer/artist.

Also, while Niki was talking to that red-head they mentioned D.L. a couple of times, as if he were Micah's biological father. 69.140.12.149 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Both correct and notible. However, the thing with Isaac happened in an altrernate future Hiro narrowly escaped from. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Production of a comic from finished art to press would take a month or more, for the quality of color printing seen in the show. I'd say it's valid to add Sequential artist, as I already did, or writer/artist as it also was at one point. Should this really be a problem for some, I'm willing to wait a week for more information, but not much more than that. I think this is a case of common sense prevailing, and we should re-add the info. ThuranX 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

C.S.I. Parody?

At the murder scene with Matt in the second epidode, there seems to be a parody of C.S.I. and possibly Cold Case with the two females, the blonde and the redhead, at the crime scene. Maybe this is enough for the trivia section?Bryanedp9 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. I'm banking on a coincidence. And, even if it is, it's sketchy at best. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add that its also a Lost parody as both show feature actors who portray characters...

Is Heroes too Gory?

I want to link to this article because it brings up a pretty valid argument about the violence in Heroes:

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/heroes/heroes_gores_it_up.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Thedrobber (talkcontribs) 18:23, October 3, 2006

Well, that certainly appears to be a valid source, but I guess my question would be: Is the argument that Heroes is NOTABLY gory? CSI, Blade, X-Files, etc over the past 10 years have raised the acceptibility level for allowable gore on television, so I would ask if there's any evidence that Heroes is particularly gory, as opposed to simply another violent show of modern times. -Markeer 22:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd usually be inclined to say it's not, but between Sylar, Niki and Claire, the show has packed five dead bodies and three severe injuries into just two episodes. I don't think a note should be made on the article just yet, but maybe on the episode list article or individual episode articles. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The gore is refreshing. I'm tired of heros and villians fight and destroying half a city yet nobody gets hurt.

Its on at 9 0'clock at night for an hour. That initslef sould tell you the show is not for kids. I really disagreed with the article with that opinion. The article says that they were targeting it for kids. There is no evidence of direclty advistising for children. people need to begin to realize that comics and super heros has become much more far reaching than kids. At this point most comics at super hero related medie is targeted to teenagers and adults.

The animated Justice League Unlimited was aimed more at adults, even though the toys where aimed for kids.

Hunger?

When you here the message from sylith,(i forgot how to spell his name) he mentions his hunger. Do you think that has any thing to do thing to do with the removal of brains. I think he needs to feed on them inorder to stay alive or somthing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.249.248 (talkcontribs) 23:20, October 3, 2006

Excellent point. We don't want to venture too deep into the realm of speculation, but I'll make a note. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The show is kind of hinting around that Sylar may be eating the brains of other people with super powers. In his New York apartment he had a map of where heros live that was way more detailed than the one the Indian Professor (Suresh I think his name is)had. The artist who can paint the future didn't have a brain when Hiro found him dead.

Additionally, at the end of chapter 2, the implication is that the brains of the victims are missing, and it is suggested by the investigating officer's inquiries that they are eaten. This may have been a clue dropped as humor/anecdotal comment? - eightysix 07:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

14.3?

The introduction says 14.3 million viewers. The NBC promos suggest 25 million. Any idea which is "true" (in the hazy world of ratings : ) - jc37 01:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

14.3 is the number from the Nielsen ratings for the premiere on NBC (on 9/25). I'm not sure how NBC came up with 25, possibly if they factored in the additional broadcasts (NBC & Sci-Fi channel) and the various places it could be found online... Purely speculation though. Ollie 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

D.L. Hawkins

Could this D.L. Hawkins guy be the same person that Niki and her friend (forgot the name) were talking about? The one that would supposedly protect Niki but is on the run from the law.--68.90.60.104 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

D.L. Hawkins is Niki's husband, so yes, he is the same guy. -pandaki 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter's power

I read in TV Guide that Peter's power turns out to be the power to asorb other's powers. But this has not come up in the show. Should it be included?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsyder (talkcontribs) at 02:58, October 4, 2006

I'd wait until it actually happens, rumors are an articles bane. Nezu Chiza 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a copy of that article, please link it here. ::TV Guide is a perfectly decent citation for an article about a television program. -Markeer 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, sign your comments. Second, this is the furst time any source has been mentioned. If you're the same GIPU who brought this up on Talk:Peter Petrelli, it would have been nice if you were clearer and more direct. Third, I'd definitely like to see this for myself. I'll honestly say upfront that I don't believe this. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
A brief glance at TVguide.com does not have any "feature" which specifically mentions Peter's undetermined powers, other than flight, so It may be in the newest issue but can anyone reference the actual article? Zippedpinhead 04:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who asked this on Peter's Talk Page, and I didn't realize that there was a TV-guide article about his power (I was speculating), however if you check above, you'll see that it comes from the October 9th through October 15th edition. I think Ace Class Shadow is getting a snippy, but maybe it's just me. --DJ Chair 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the ability he seems to have to tell the future? He tells his mother about that one event in the first episode about him realizing his brother was in the wreck before anyone else knew and he had drawn that picture of him and his brother on the roof in the second episode with him flying. Stetsonblade

Your first point only tells us that he has an empathetic bond with his older brother, which is not unheard of in close families. It is almost as if he can "feel" major events occur in real time. Your second point occurs after he touches Isaac, which under the theory of the mimicry superpower like Mimic, would be allowed.Zippedpinhead 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Peter has specific visions of falling/jumping off the building long before he meets Isaac, the precog. Chulbert 13:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, after episode two, we've observed precognition and flight. While in the hospital Peter drew the rooftop scene from the end of episode two (precognition) and in that scene itself we observed Peter flying. Yes, technically he just "levitated" but between that and his brother Nathan's testimony that he actually flew after jumping off the building, I don't think we need to be overly obtuse on this issue. I also think there's enough evidence to support the case that is actual ability is at least power mimicry, possibly absorption, so I'm perfectly comfortable listing it as a speculated power. However, at this point there is no evidence that he actually steals powers ala Rogue, so I'd rather leave out absorption as a candidate and simply stick with mimicry. Chulbert 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with you on all the points that you made. There still are a lot of questions regarding his powers. I placed "flight" as a speculation since we only observed him levitating as you said. I'll have to go back and watch the episode again, but I think that Nathan said that he grabbed his brother but couldn't hold him because he was too heavy for him. He dropped Peter and he floated down towards the ground. --Pinkkeith 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You moved Flight from the observed to speculated powers and added Levitation to the list of observed powers. How do you distinguish between "levitating one's self" and "flying"? The problem I have with listing Flight as a speculated power is that, imho, nobody actually speculates that Flight is his true power. If you insist on mentioning Levitation somewhere, I'd rather see it listed more specifically as "self-levitation", at which point you practically have to include flight, leaving us with "self-levitation/flight". Chulbert 16:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
He was floating, which is different than flight, because flight is horizontal, and levitaion is vertical.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 17:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Now you've introduced a new term, "floating", without a specific definition. It is interesting to note, however, that even by the definitions you provide - not that I agree with tem - Peter flew. He moved through the air horizontally toward his brother, Nathan. Chulbert 17:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't know what his power is yet. He hasn't truely flew yet. I don't think we actually observed him flying per se. Frankly, we didn't even see him fly horizontally, the camera was close on his face and then pulled back to show him in the air. We didn't observe him doing anything. I think it would be best to say that it is unknown for the time being. --Pinkkeith 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Flying, floating, levitation... This is starting to get technical. Can we just agree that he seems to have the ability to bend gravity? At least for himself?--68.90.60.104 01:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
NO, because that implies other things. He FLEW. He was above the ground which is vertical (levitation) yet could walk across thin air, thus propulsion, which is the essential difference between levitation and flight. ThuranX 02:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this story is heavily rooted in comic books and animated shows I will make an analogy to refute your statement. In Looney Tunes, When Wiley Coyote runs after the roadrunner and runs accross the end of a precipace, he continues to walk until he notices that he is walking on Air. The same event occurs to Peter in this show, He continues to walk on air until his brother tells him that he is on air. I would not/Could not make an arguement that Wiley was flying, he was merely doing something without realizing it. Peter was exactly the same way.Zippedpinhead 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

X isn't saying Peter knew what he was doing. X's assertion is that Peter could only have done it one way, which makes sense physically. Specifically, X is saying that Levitation does not allow for the much movement, especially the kind Peter was making. Thus, although Peter believed he was simply walking, he had to be subconciously propeling himself forward. Alsom your analogy, while cute, is flawed. This is serious, moderan, live-action, drama series about superowered characters. Looney Tunes are old cartoons with physically impossible sight gags. Loonatics would be a better comparison, but even then...yeah. Anyway, the bottomline is that he was not only in mid air, but moved. Most people would agree to calling that "flight". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't a teenage girl having her neck snapped by a football player and then returning it to its original position count as physically impossible? And seeing as we haven't actually seen Peter fly yet, i'd like to propose a different theory. Flight implies upwards (vertical) propulsion in combination with horizontal propulsion; Peter, as far as we know, has only stayed on the same level that he's been on. He did not go upwards when walking across the air to his brother; perhaps when he was falling, he didn't exactly fly, but more stop his descent mid-air, at which point, had he full control of his powers, he would have been able to move as if that height were on the ground. Instead, he fell the rest of the way. Pretty absurd, yes, but... it's super heroes. They're allowed to be absurd.--The Sporadic Update 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the case on the flight thing, I've been thinking more about these "other powers". Firstly, from now on, this article will not try to argue a point. No "assumed powers" based loosely on other assumptions. Personally, I don't see the point in debating terminology between flight and levitation, but I'll leave that be since I don't have a strong opinon or case either way. As for the precognition, I don't think the burden of proof has been met. Spor and I are talking about absurdities; well, what's more absurd than basing assertions on dreams and stick figure drawings? As X has stated, flight-related dreams are very common. Furthermore, he largely arranged for his dream to "come true" after seeing it in his mind. It wasn't like Isaac painting horrible situations which Claire and Hiro later experiences. Also, Peter had the dream before meeting Isaac. The poor drawing is just as weak. Looking back, it was POV that applied the meaning/similarity of the doodle to Peter and Nathan's actual nighttime experience. Honestly, from the positioning of the figure, I see Peter drawing someone taking upward flight, not someone statary or moving forward. Finally, I still yet to see any citation from TVguide, a magazine that is bought and brought to my home every week. So, bottomline: his main power is still, if you forgive the pun, up in the air, but everything else is off the table. This is just like Niki, guys. No speculation, no matter how "obviously right" your theory might seem. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now flying is the only power he clearly has. Even drawing himself in the air can be conected to his own dreams of flying, bur we can assume he has enpathic powers or power mimicry (maybe both), but this is expeculating. About the difference between flight and levitation, levitate involves freing himself from gravity without propelling ways, with means he can jump and not fall, but cannot change directions without something else to propel him (this is like My Secret Identity.) At most, we could change it to air-walking (with is also almost the same thing)DinobotTM2 01:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok the floating,levitation, flight argument is really annoying. In most comics, movies, and tv shows, they wouldnt get that specific. At this point evidence points to power mimicing but at that point he could fly. He didnt do it very long, but the we should just call it flight. The defintitions of floating and levitation is just obsesive and nitpicky.
First off, he was flying, he walked out to his brother, indicating horizontal movement, not levitation. Secondly, seeing how it's been decided he mimics powers, I'd say it's time this section be removed.Knightrojen 07:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel it's worth noting that in the third episode, he was no longer able to fly. It seems certain that he can only mimic powers of people nearby him. I know Isaac wasn't with him in the hospital room when he drew the picture of himself flying to his brother, but if he was in the same building, he may have been close enough for power mimicry to occur. Should we change the power to "Power mimicry of those within certain distance?" Briham 13:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up this Talk page

This Talk page has become over-wrote with duplicate comments, due in part to section headers that are ambiguous. I believe that we need to come to a quick agreement on how to best organize this page before it becomes too cluttered and utterly useless to all but the most fanatical of fanboys.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Chair (talkcontribs)

Normally talk pages can be archived when they get big enough, but these discussions are mostly current and/or too recent to move. It's fine for now. Believe me - this talk page is nothing compared to some of the ones you'll see here. Kafziel Talk 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
yah, what Kafziel said. At the end of October I'd say do an "archive to date" since some of the unknowns about the characters will be clearer, and it will clear the page up for "Sweeps" month debates since all Nov. episodes of network shows tend to be new. -Markeer 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking it may be time to clean this talk page up now as it's getting very unruly. If my count is correct theirs like 4 or 5 sections for the symbol. Also all of the character specific topics should be moved to that characters talk page theres no reason for it to be on the shows main talk page it just gets too cluttered. Barring any objections I will go ahead and do the archive tonight around 12am EST -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(formerly from archive 3)

Hiro's name

From NBC's graphic novel\comic it's clear that Hiro is not named because it sounds like "hero": http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/Heroes_novel_002.pdf

I suggest removing that sentence entirely as it's not encyclopaedic in my opinion. Whysquared 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The in-story reason for his naming is irrelevant to non-fictional reason. The punny uses make that clear. Still, I'll alter the sentence and move it to the proper article. BTW, sign your comments, mate.ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There. Anyway, it may be a pun, but I think the article should clarify about the reason behind the name. Whysquared 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The information has been moved to Hiro's article. I'm doing the same with another bit of "trivia" now. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Linderman

How do you all feel about adding Mr. Linderman to the other character section on the main page? I know he hasn't been shown yet, but he has directly affected two of the characters, Nathan (looking for a contribution) and Niki (looking to even the score.) What do you think? --DJ Chair 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He's been connected to two main characters. I'd say that's worth mention. Chulbert 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yah, he's been added to the list by Ace. --DJ Chair 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lawsuit

If you did stick your hand down a active one would you injure you're hand? that should be on their. Tortanick

What? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Tortanick is talking about the lawsuit brought against NBC by the makers of the In-Sink-Erator (the garbage disposal.) His question is badly worded, I can't imagine anyone not getting their hand mangled in an active disposal. --DJ Chair 05:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Many garbage disposals don't have blades like a lawn mower. They have a rotating disc with a tiny square metal stub that sticks up. That stub pulverizes the food. If you stuck your hand onto it, it would bash at your fingertips, but it would not reach up and chew your hand up.68.202.22.235 02:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
sorry about the bad wording. I do that sometimes. Just wondered because my Disposel cannot be turned on without a heavy plastic seal covering it (Twisting the seal acts as the on/off switch) so I'd allways assumed such foolproof safty methods were standard.

Why is page locked?

I'm starting this thread in response to an unsigned comment (now deleted) by another editor asking this question. Since Heroes is a going concern and likely to have a lot of editors both registered and anonymous I'd like to request the admin who chose to lock to page please give a brief reason here for the benefit of any newcomers (actually such a note should have been placed earlier - maybe it was and I missed it). As an admin myself I know why the page was locked, but since I didn't do it, the admin who made the call should be given first refusal on explaining the reason for anyone who wants to know. Cheers! 23skidoo 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as that little blue box clearly states, it's a vandalism inspired lock, and it's only against users without accounts, not logged into their accounts, and new accounts. thos of us who've been on wikipedia for any substantial time can still edit it.ThuranX 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call four days substantial, but I digress. I can tell you why. (Still, like you assumed, it's been mentioned, and like X said, it's pretty obvious.) I made a request for protect over the whole Peter powers thing. There's still a lot of uncertain and bad edits even with GIPUs blocked, so, I doubt this page will be unprotected for a while. Frankly, I wish the rules could be changed to the numbers I mentioned before someguy's correction. If this page is any example, four days doesn't weed out...well...stupidity.

Now, as an Admin, I'm sure you can understand. Err- well...not sure. I mean...if the reasoning had to be explained...feh. I'm rambling. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is this company trying to say, that putting your hand into the maching WON'T damage your hand? Yeah good luck proving THAT in court! NorthernThunder 11:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A section on the talk page already exists for this topic, please see above or the table of contents under 'The Lawsuit'. ThuranX 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heroes_%28TV_series%29"

TVGUIDE citation!

Yes! I found it! It's the October 9-14 TVGUIDE. Booya, my friends. Sorry for my disbelief. Word for word:

Forgive the copyvio, but this is big. Tim is also quoted as saying that Niki must learn how to "unify this other side of her and ultimately control." "other side" is vague, but I think "control it" definitely means something. Oh, and the guide just also happens to state, "The tortured artist predicts the future when he paints in a heroin-induced daze." (I know. It's almost exactly what we had written.) Plus, "Early in the season he's trying to figure out if these powers exist when he isn't high," Kring says. We'll learn him and make notes along the way, of course. Oh yeah...this next one just fucked me sideways: Micah does have a power, it's different from his parents—they're not telling—and DL isn't introduced until the fifth ep. Next ep (Oct. ninth) is apparently going to be a test of "just how tough [Claire] is." Are you excited? I'm excited. They keep referring to her as "indestructable" and such. I'm beginning to wonder if this is just a simplified explanation or something more. Healing factor meets invulnerability? Logan meets Clark? We'll see, we'll see.

Oh yeah. "It's no coincidence we named him Hiro," Kring says. Who called it? No, seriously...I don't remember. There's also some stuff confirming the obvious. Nathan doesn't want a power, Sylar is a killer, et cetera. Hey, Kaffy, if you're still watching, I've got a question: You want want proof? You can't handle the proof! :-D ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Did no one read this section or the latest TV Guide? For shame, guys. I thought you all cared. :( ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a journal citation template to the first TV Guide footnote in the Main Characters chart, so that its reference would no longer appear as blank. However, I've never seen the article describing the characters' powers, so would one of you who knows the article name, date, etc. please fill in the missing info in the journal citation? Primogen 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. There's no URL thatr I can find, but I can tell you the author. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Horn-Rimmed Glasses"

All of the references I can find for the cast indicate that the character's name is "Horn-Rimmed Glasses" so I changed his listing back in the character table and cited the tvguide.com page. As a side note, his last name doesn't necessarily have to be Bennet just because it's Claire's last name. I know several people who don't have the same last name as their father. --Aldryd 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's no "guy" or "man" at the end of his title. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this link? Ozzie Grigsby is a crew member from the show (though I've no idea what he does), and he is referring to Linderman and HRG in the same breath there. Now, I was thinking that the current wiki info is correct and that Linderman is the mob boss, but I did want to bring it up. Thoughts? SuperJerms 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't put too much weight in the comments on a forum. I can say from the mistakes of others that characters thought to be similar or the same aren't always. Horny was thought to be Sylar at one point. It's all unproven spec—and downright stupid in some cases—until we see hard evidence otherwise. I recall, once, William Magnus and Charles "Charlie" Szasz were illustrated similarly in a book. Nothing really came of it, beyond changes to distinguish the two, but the recent questioning of who "Charlie" was fueled a bit. Anyway, I'd disregard stuff like that, dude. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah don't put too much weight in what I say on the boards. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's just to kick up a discussion. I will try to catch things here if they get too off base, but everyone's doing an awesome job. Oh, and it's "Ollie" Grigsby. ;) Ollie 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In the third episode, one of Claire's friends calls him "Mr. Bennet". You can debate what his technical "character name" is, but I think this should indicate "Mr. Benet" is a better name to identify the character with in the article. Alienmercy 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
His name in the script in Horn Rimmed Glasses, that's the name we use/--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is 9thwonders.com Cast/Crew Forum Chat Useful?

While I'm on the subject, how much should the above site be used as a reference? It is semi-official, it does have writers and cast running around, and it also has many spoilers floating around from the horse's mouth. Much of it would be useful in the wiki (e.g. reference to the Dreamtime as a writing inspiration for either Hiro or Issac, reference to Mosaic (genetics) as a writing inspiration for Peter, and a host of spoilers about coming episode content), but is it in-bounds? After all, crew might comment on things in the rushes that end up on the editing room floor, they might say the wrong thing, or they might just be screwin with the fans. My gut says it would be just as useful as official forums are in other wikipedia articles, but seems like it's worth discussing first. SuperJerms 05:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that only those facts derived from interviews and 'official articles' would be useful, while in-thread commentary would not. There MIGHT be an exception if there's abosulte proof that a poster is genuinely part of the crew or cast, but that's hard to verify on a forum. ThuranX 05:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but remember that this is not a fan forum, it is run by someone working with NBC. It isn't just some random person saying, "I'm a crewmember, I promise," or, "My friend says he knows the director's hair-stylest, and she says...." The site has specific categories for show writers (scribblers), crew, and cast, as well as exclusive content and art assets. SuperJerms 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's true that you can verify who is actual crew on 9th wonders, but it's also true that you can't always trust what's coming out of their mouths. While none of us would outright lie, there are definitely times when a comment could be open for interpretation. I'd say 9th Wonders could be used as a source but only when the comment is presented in a very straightforward manner. Ollie 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Synopsis Section

From the article:
"According to the official NBC website, not only do the characters discover what having superpowers means to them, but also uncover a larger picture concerning the origin of their superpowers. The characters eventually become involved in each other's lives as they attempt to evade the series antagonist, who wishes to harness their "super DNA" for his own ends.

That last part seems speculative. I didn't see anything on the official website that says anything about the antagonist wanting to harness their DNA, only that they will save the world. We either need a citation or to remove it.

Also, it might be worth adding a section into the article talking about similar shows to Heroes, or about the perceived similarities. I know I've seen it discussed in the press. Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJerms) (talkcontribs) 03:27, October 10, 2006

To the first, I'd say "citation needed", though it seems to be coming true either way. To the second, we had something like that. Went too far and began to lack purpose. A lot of fiction, surprisingly, deals with themes similar to heroes. And news articles mentioning similar work don't mean anything. I've seen the web likend to a "counter culture utopia". It's POV, cited or not, and it doesn't help the article. BTW, sign your comments with four tildes. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Chandra Suresh's Neighbor

What is her character name / actress name?Tbmorgan74 20:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Eden Mackenzie Rihk 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylar and the Bullet proof vest

The character description for Sylar says he had on a bullet proof vest. I don't think Sylar had a bullet proof vest on since you couldn't see it. Is there any evidence to support this claim? Besides why would someone with telekinesis need a bullet proof vest? They could stop the bullets with their mind.

Stopping a bullet with your mind requires being able to react faster than it takes for the bullet to reach you, as well as to be actually aware of which direction it's coming from, whereas putting on body armor just requires a couple hundred bucks. I'm not sure I actually believe he was wearing a vest, but I can certainly see why a telekinetic would want to wear additional armor. EvilCouch 10:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the vest, it only makes sense he would stack the deck in his favor. Sylar seems to be a very intelligent villain, I would assume he would consider a lucky shot getting through his powers from time to time (especially if he's distracted.) Also, if you turn the volume up enough, you'll hear the bullets falling to the ground after he gets up. Which could suggest that they impacted against something (like his chest) and were then held off the ground until he stood (like in his lap.) --DJ Chair 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's also just as likely that he's bulletproof. He does seem to have a number of powers and not just telekinesis. --ScorpSt
Could it be that some of the victims have been "powered" individuals, and he has absorbed their powers by killing them? That might explain why he seems to have multiple powers, whereas everybody else seems to have only one, or at most variations on a theme. I'm not adding it to the page, just speculating about a link between the murders and his powers. --Psiphiorg 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He did have that map with the people with powers so maybe.

No unverifiable or unsourced speculation is allowed on Wikipedia. Simply report on the event on the show; don't hypothesize reasons for Sylar's survival. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought;Wikipedia does not allow original research (i.e., bulletproof vest theory) nor is it a discussion forum. --Madchester 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The bullet proof vest is only being discussed because there was a mention of it in the main article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.125.177 (talkcontribs) 08:57, October 11, 2006

Feh. Don't worry, 75. Maddy can be a bit of a blowhard. '[wipes foggy glass]* Note the steam. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylar wouldn't need a bulletproof vest if he was telekinetic, nor would he need to have multiple powers. everything we have seen from his character can be encompassed under telekinesis. Telekinesis, or moving matter with your mind, also means moving energy with your mind, since matter is energy. With this, he could move thermal energy from bodies, create a force field to stop bullets, eject bullets from his body and close the holes back up, and move himself vertically. Rihk 22:08 13 October 2006

pete's image

In the second episode, pete is in the hospital and is seen drawing a picture of him levitating that would come true. Many people say that he mimiced the power (witch is probebly right) and used it withought drugs. This would be true at first glance but the chances are that pete had some form of morphine or another drug in his system while at the hospital, so he to might need to use drugs to enhance the powers.

Why would he be on morphine? The most he would be given is some tylenol, unless he had a debilitating illness or broken bones or something. He's obviously able to move his arms and legs, so it doesn't look too bad. I do think he was tranquilized, though. Probably given some sort of sedative to keep him sleeping for awhile. Rihk 22:11 13 October 2006
Why would he be on a tranq? He was (supposedly) commiting suicide, jumping from a building. They wouldn't tranq you if you survived, you'd be on pain pills. I think this is discussed further up in regards to Petey's prediction of his walking on air to his brother (which is horizontal, not vertical, like it was stated)Knightrojen 07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sedated to keep him asleep to recover while they run some tests and to de-stress and rest. I suppose if he had injured himself in an uncontrolled fall to the ground, he would need pain relievers, but Nathan did not need any pain relievers at all, leading me to think that Peter was sedated for depression. Rihk 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

character template

I liked the template that was implemented on the 10th of October for the addition characters. It cleaned up the design a little and made it not seem _so_ messy. Who's with me on implementing it that way instead of tossing everything into columns, as opposed to columns and rows? --DJ Chair 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks terrible, both ways. The description is way too long to be put into a table like that. I think it would be done best if it wasn't a table at all. --Pinkkeith 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

unreadable character in the bar

Erm... I got the impression that was actually D.L. Hawkins, not Benett's associate. Him being unreadable to Matt and causing him to faint would kinda fit in the whole supernatural fugitive story, wouldn't it? Besides, he looks like the actor that's supposed to be portraying D.L. -- 89.172.29.21 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would D.L.'s power (phasing) be the cause of Matt's passing out at the bar? Maybe, and more likely, the beer he was drinking had been tampered with and he was drugged. (You heard it here first, if I'm right, you all owe me a dollar!) --DJ Chair 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't that be the pinnacle of phasing - being not only able to disappear and/or blend into your surroundings but also being able to both passively and actively counter any attempt at reading. After all, what good would phasing do if it were possible for others to read your mind? :) Re: beer - thought of that too, but beer was from tap and besides, he could read the bartender and others in the immediate vicinity, remember? 89.172.29.21 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Damn... you were right after all :P 89.172.9.107 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
They are played by different actors according to IMDB [2]. The mysterious man is played by Jimmy Jean-Louis and D.L. by Leonard Roberts. --musicpvm 13:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Re-read what i wrote. I never implied they were played by the same actor. 89.172.29.21 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
One might also want to note that Mystery Man In Bar is wearing a necklace whose charm is the same half-helix DNA symbol seen on Mohinder's father's book, in the algorithm for the "mutant-tracking" program, drawn on the pages of Claire's school textbook, afloat in the pool of the Walker's house (Sylar's victims in episode 2), and scrawled on the various faces on Sylar's map... I'm sure that symbol's elsewhere that I missed. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The half-helix seems to be just about everywhere you look in every other scene :) I'm not sure anymore if it's supposed to mean anything in specific or is just a comic-like leitmotif. 89.172.29.21 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be notable to include a section about all the sightings of the half helix? I.e. in the pool of the scene with the empath cop?Knightrojen 07:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(formerly from archive 4)

Eclipse

Ok, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about with this, but I wanted to run it by everyone before saying anything on the main page. As much as I'm enjoying this show, I'm pretty sure that they got the solar eclipse in the pilot very wrong. If I remember correctly, every main character seemed to be able to see the eclipse at the same time. First of all, the characters in New York and the characters in Japan saw a solar eclipse at the same time. This shouldn't happen since Japan and New York are about 12 hours apart from each other. Also, I'm pretty sure that the full solar eclipse is only visible in a localized area, so even people in New York and people in Los Angeles would not see it together. Am I right about this? Any astronomers out there?--Radaar 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Noone ever implied it was happening at the same time and it was clearly stated it wasn't a total eclipse in NY/LV, wasn't it? -- 89.172.29.21 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hiro looked up and saw it, IIRC, while on the roof doing calisthenics with his coworkers.64.247.206.184 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Character formatting

Listen, what's the point of listing Peter's job as N/A, but listing the other's powers as None? We need to find a common descriptor and stick to it. I'm okay with N/A but only if the dearth of powers is marked the same way.

Also, we don't need punctuation, it's silly to use a period inside a table, unless someone is incorporating a full sentence. --DJ Chair 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First ep: Job. Third ep: quits job. For all intents and purposes, it's N/A. Mohinder and Simone never had powers. Never will, most likely. "None". I'll undo the puncy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Were we to truly quip about proper english usage, N/A is the correct choice for both Peter's current employment, as well as the other's powers.
Check out N/A[3] : not applicable
As opposed to None[4] : not any, as of something indicated --DJ Chair 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis Links

I feel that it would be more useful to link the descriptions in the Synopsis quote to the pages of the characters, not information about the words themselves. Ie, "high school cheerleader" would link to Claire's article, not High School and Cheerleader. I thought it best to ask first, though, just in case there's some particular reason to leave them as they are. --dws90 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently the character's name links to their article. Their occupation/place in society links to what is that they do/are. --DJ Chair 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to the text under the "Synopsis" heading, not the table of characters itself. That's fine as it is. --dws90 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hidden URl for comic 003

Hi... know I'm not supposed to do this, but what's the hidden URl forComic 003 --Ac1983fan(yell at me) 00:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this should be added, but...

somebody at Heroes the series.com forums named fishypants claimed he is a special effects worker on the show. He claimed that HRG is actually not a villian, but rather a protector of the heroes. Don't know if it's true or not, so I'm not sure if it should be added.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

While that's certainly within the realm of possibility, that's not definitive enough a source. There's no way to prove that he's really who he says he is, and if even if that was confirmed, I don't place posts on message boards very high on the source list. We should stick to just taking information from the show and official sources (like that TV guide interview with the writer). --dws90 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter's Powers

We cannot claim a hero to have a power unless the show reveals it. We cannot claim that Peter’s power is Mimicry until the show reveals it. There is a source from weeks ago claiming Peter’s power is mimicry. The writing of the show can be changed anytime until the show airs. Therefore, a hero’s powers cannot be indisputably confirmed until the show airs. Until the show airs, Peter’s powers can be anything. Once the show reveals his powers, we can it is no longer up for dispute. Until then, the source might say it, but this is an encyclopedia article about the show itself. It has to be revealed in the show to be official.

The show has revealed Peter to have used Isaac and Nathan’s powers. We can safely assume that his power is mimicry. I’m personally convinced his power is mimicry. But this is an encyclopedia article, and requires the utmost scrutiny.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohinder925 (talkcontribs) at 01:01, October 16, 2006

No, wrong. We CAN, and DO, use citation on Wikipedia. We are NOT a fanboy forum. Reverted.ThuranX 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comments are out of line. Your behavior is out of line. Belligerent behavior is not accpetable, and will be reported. This is an encyclopedia. Articles must abide by proper scrutiny. You must provide valid reasoning for your views. "We are not a fanboy forum" is not acceptable.

The following might have been stated outside of the show, but is not confirmed by the show itself. (Powers must be confirmed by the show.): 1. Peter's Powers 2. Niki's Powers 3. Micah's Powers 4. DL's Powers 5. Isaac's powers induced by heroin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohinder925 (talkcontribs) as of 01:24, October 16, 2006

No. This has been repeatedly discussed here. the fact that you chooe to ignore the talk page till it suits you shows your lack of regard for wikipedia. Finally, this is NOT a fanboy forum IS a reason to remove information. The page will not become a repository of rumors and anti-spoiler based fannish reporting. Finally, I gave a clear reason before the fanboy comment, "We CAN, and DO, use citation on Wikipedia.". that's why it was reveted, plain and simple. Please read the entire comments.ThuranX 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The whole "if it's not stated with in the fiction itself, it's not canon!" philosophy is, in and of itself, a fan thing. Wikipedia needs to be verifiable above being "canon" or "truthful". We cannot accept truthiness-fueled speculation, but if the TV Guide—a famously accurate source—says Peter's power is mimicry, that's what we'll write.
Furthermore, to the ultimate end of this canonicity policy, we'd also be barred from including the factual data of DL's powers, if not his whole character. We'd lose more than we'd gain,—what would we gain, anyway? Happy fans? Bah.—and I can't go for that! No, no! No can do!
Oh! BTW, don't forget to sign your comments the next time you feel like telling to us about policies and standards, k? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Chill out, X. Explain your points clearly and without overt insults. ;) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(funny, funny.) ThuranX 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, since you brought it up, a lot of stuff has been stated, argued, etc. Let me set some things straight:

  • We are not including the occapation field anymore, period.
  • We are not speculating about powers, but we will include cited information which hasn't be stated/confirmed during a television broadcast.
    • I repeat, we are not speculating, no matter how much we feel we understand their powers. Powers such as those of Niki Sanders would be a breeding ground for theories if we did.
  • Perceived antagonist(s) will not be added to the main character section. Their very status as antagonist(s) is questionable and they are not protagonist(s) either way.

Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have the dead tree version of TV Guide on hand, but a quick look at the online version doesn't show any official mention that Peter's power is mimicry. There is a speculative article, though, at http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700008929 - so while this is citable, I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. Oh, never mind - someone transcribed the right article here (post 53). :) And for good measure, a scan of the page with Peter here.
That being said, however, Milo Ventimiglia has admitted in an IGN TV interview that Peter's power is not flight, but he is an empath - whether this means that he's an empath to other people's powers in general or just to his brother is not particularly clear in the interview.[5]
Oh, and Mohinder925 (talk · contribs), you can sign your posts (and please do!) by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So, you went out of your way to agree with me? Nice! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree, schmagree... I'm all about the verifiability, man. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)



My original description was not clear. I apologize. I want to state this as clearly as possible so that we all can understand and discuss how facts about fictional characters must be referenced in a reputable encyclopedia.

Fact and Fiction seem to be getting mixed up. The objective is to point out the facts regarding fictional characters according to a fictional story. The TV Guide or any interview is not part of the fictional story, but outside of the fictional story.

  • Please refrain from bashing fans and insinuating objective standard of information has anything to do with fans. Comments such as:

"Happy fans? Bah.—and I can't go for that! No, no! No can do!" I see no point or productivity in this behavior. This has no relevance. An objective depiction of facts in an encyclopedia has nothing to do with pleasing anybody. What is in question are the facts regarding the powers of these characters according to a completely fictional story.

  • The character descriptions in this article are descriptions of fictional characters according to the fictional story.
  • The TV Guide is not an academic journal. The TV Guide provides us evidence of article of an interview. This means that the only fact you can gather is that the individual in the interview made the claim that Mimicry is Peter's power.

If we were disputing whether or not Mr. X had ever claimed that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese, we can cite TV Guide interview where he made this claim as evidence -We can use the TV Guide as evidence that Mr. X made the claim. -We CANNOT use the TV Guide as evidence that Mr. X’s claim is true.

Because this is fiction, and not an aspect of real science or history, we have to site the area within the fictional story something was revealed. 1. The TV Guide might cite Dan Brown as stating that Mr. X really wrote “The Da Vinci Code”. 2. The TV Guide might cite Dan Brown as stating that “The novel was about traveling into outer space to visit Aliens.

    1. 1 cannot be verified to be true or false by citing the actual fictional story.
    2. 2 Can be verified to be true or false by citing the actual fictional story.
    3. 2 CANNOT be verified to be true or false by citing the TV Guide interview with Dan Brown.
  • The fact that Dan Brown made the statements can be verified to be true or false by citing the TV Guide interview.

The TV Guide “does not” prove that Peter's powers are Mimicry. The TV Guide “does” prove that somebody made the claim that Peter's powers are Mimicry. These are very different facts.


The fact that the individual in the TV Guide interview made the claim regarding these powers is not what we are disputing. We all agree that the TV Guide is evidence that the individual made these claims. Whether these claims are true or not is what we are disputing. The evidence has to be verified by documenting the “published” fiction story. In this case, it is the TV episode that aired.

In order to prove that our statement in a legitimate encyclopedia regarding a fictional character is correct, we have to cite the area of the fictional story as evidence. If we post a claim about Peter's Powers, we have to be able to provide the evidence by referencing the episode/scene in which it is indisputably revealed that these are his powers. Unfortunately, that episode/scene has yet not been aired. The same goes for many facts about the rest of the characters as well as any other form of speculation that remains up for dispute. Mohinder925 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That was a pretty long winded tirad. Okay, now let me explain it to you.
Just because the story is fictional does not mean the fiction itself is that only valid medium. First off, tell us, please, how you would go about citing television as the source of your information. Second, why is anything outside of TV invalidated, exactly? Because you say it is? Sorry, that's where the "fan policies don't count" talk comes in. Because it could be wrong? As I stated above, Wikipedia is about verifiability. Like Sebastian Shark said, truth is relative. This does not count obvious jokes, which you're referring to. No one is going to cite TV Guide or TV as proof that, say, Lisa Simpson is the future president of the United States.
Now, please try to get this through your head: like X said, we can and will cite sources outside of a television broadcast as proof of a fictional character's abilities. Look at comic book articles. More and more, citations are popping up there. Is the whole Wikipedia Comics Project wrong?

(These are not all rhetorical questions, BTW.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And to add:
To limit sources purely to "canonical" sources is way, way too narrow. As a legitimate encyclopedia, we cannot limit ourself to fan-pleasing sources. Real world sources need to be considered, and surely the views of the people behind the creation of those sources have to be taken into account - and in this case, the possibility of the article being wrong about Peter's powers is infinitesimal. At worst, it's still verifiable that the article has said so, and I don't really think it's untrue (especially not as the episodes in question have already been recorded). You're being way too pedantic in this instance. I'm even willing to put good money down on Peter's power being mimicry as true and correct. Any takers? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear! I'm glad that most editors commenting on this issue are aware that citation is important to wikipedia. Mohinder, you need to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies, especially verifiability. Thank you.ThuranX 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)



1. I never said anything about citing Television itself. A fictional account such as a character's super powers can be evidenced according the fiction in which it took place.

2. Not necessarily anything out of TV. Even Heroes adds image tidbits on the website to add to the story. I claim that the protagonist in a fictional story jumped off a cliff. The only evidence of whether this is true or false is within the fictional story. Events that took place and aspects described within the story. Perhaps a related addendum to a story like some fantasy writers use. But a third party article on the story is quite dubious.

3. Your use of "fan policies don't count" is invalid to this discussion. This discussion is about verifiability. Discontinue using evidence that is unrelated to a discussion about encyclopedia verifiability. As you stated, “Wikipedia is about verifiability”. I never said that it was not. Please do not misinterpret my comments or put words into my mouth. I have never made the statement that this is not about verifiability. The whole argument is about what verifiability is. I cannot understand how you make comments that have nothing to do with this argument.

4. When referring to the validity of the whole Wikipedia Comics Project, I have stated how to prove what is true and false in each article. If an assertion within an encyclopedia article is about a fictional event or aspect, that assertion must be supported by evidence according to the fictional story.

5. The fact that you “can and will” do something does not mean it is correct or proper for a factual article. I was not aware that Wikipedia was a bully forum. I see no reason or point regarding this attitude. State your position about whether or not the evidence has to be in the story. Then support your position about this topic. What is the point of bully comments? All that talk is nothing more than abuse of authority and corruption. “I can and will do it anyway so there is no point in anything.” Whether you can and will do something is completely irrelevant from the question of whether or not that something supports objective truth and fact. Such arguments make no sense, and do not belong in an objective discussion. Nor are they in anyway reasonable. You can do something as in have the ability to do it. You can do something as in it is correct. In terms of being correct, you cannot post false information or information that cannot be verified. These are the terms of this discussion.

Must the facts we put in our articles be verifiable by a cited source? How can we determine actual evidence? This is what the discussion is about. These discussions are not remaining on topic. People are making comments that have nothing to do with coming to a proper conclusion regarding the topic. People are bashing fans and making comments about fans when fans were never mentioned.

6. Comments about “fan-pleasing” sources are completely irrelevant. Claiming that “citation is important to Wikipedia” is irrelevant. None of this is up for debate. Nobody ever said that citation is not important. Nobody ever said an objective article with accurate information is about “fan pleasing”. These insinuations are not part of a reasonable logical debate. Not only is unverifiable information being used in an article, people are not adhering to the topic of this discussions, and going off into tangents that are not being discussed. What really is the point of commenting on “fan-pleasing” when the subject is about accurate information regardless pleasing anybody. This is no how a correct encyclopedia works. I do not think that bullying, infantile bhavior, and irrelevant discussion should be a part of Wikipedia like it is in many discussion forums.


Proposition: Evidence for accounts within a fiction story should be cited witin the fiction story. Until the story itself reveals that Peter's power is indisputably Mimicry, we should not be posting articles claiming that his powers are indisputably Mimicry.Mohinder925 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have a look at the Wikipedia guideline page WP:Writing about fiction and pay particular attention to this section as well as the "Guideline in a nutshell" at the top of the page. In my opinion, TV Guide is a very reliable source for TV shows. As Ace said, writing about fiction doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be limited to the fiction itself. I can only speak for myself when saying that I do appreciate your drive to make this article better; however, the consensus of the editors maintaining this article is to use TV Guide as the source for citing Peter's power. Let's just hope that they clear it up in tomorrow's episode so we can all finally be happy. :) Aldryd (talkcontribs) 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I "went off topic", as you perceive it, because you seem be applying policies, systems and philosophies used by fans, not Wikipedia. As Al stated, Wikipedia's policies support the citation used in this and related articles. That's all. The I don't so much see "bully", but rather attempts to explain things falling on deaf ears (or weak eyes). Fiction is fiction; A story's a story. there's only so much a TV show can explain in an hour while still an having a plot and being interesting. This is where out-of-story information comes in. Press releases, interviews, et cetera. I, personally, don't believe in using a medium outside of the story to explain things, even now. I hated it with SPD—obscure reference. Ignore it.—I would still prefer it otherwise now. However, that's just not the way it's done all the time. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not applying polcies and systems used by fans. That did not seem to be off topic. That was off topic. If you would like to start a topic about whether or not I am using systems and policies used by fans, please do so in another article. The policies do not support that citation. It is not logical to use unverified. What qualifies as verified information is that it has to come directly from the story.
The "I can do it and I will do it" attitude has nothing to do with explaining and proper etiquette on this website. It is a bully attitude with no regard to the discussion at hand.
Unless it can be verified as part of the story, and cited as evidence within the story, it is subject to change.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohinder925 (talkcontribs) 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(formerly from archive 5)

TVRage.com Link

I've added a link to the TVRage page for the show. They have a well organized guide for the show including episodes, guest stars, plot points, etc. Plus it's far much better than the one IMDb has created. The guide also includes Notes, Quotes and Referrences, as well as spoilers and upcoming info for future episodes. And they have a hell of a lot more info that what you've allowed to be posted on here. If you're going to keep deleting material because you can't agree what belongs and what doesn't, then we need to link out to websites who have made that decision already. Might I also suggest getting TV.com page and some of the fansites posted as well. JohnQ.Public 10:25, 16 October 2006

You wouldnt happen to run this website, would you? — spam removed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not spam you jackass. If you're going to act like a little God-King and delete it because you don't like it, I'll request Admin intervention. It's not spam when it has more info than here. JohnQ.Public 11:48, 16 October 2006
I'll remind you to be civil - what does your spam cover that IMDb and the far superior tv.com do not? - Please see WP:EL. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll be civil as soon as you do. I take objection to the fact that you just stamped it as Spam without a second thought. Not to mention I doubt you even visited it to check out the info before you erased it. AND I might add you haven't even allowed TV.com to be added here, which puts into question why is it taking so much time to add info to this guide? The site has Notes, Quotes, Goofs, Cultural References, and spoiler info. FIVE things you don't have. It also has an in-depth episode guide, which you have failed to create. It also lists info about the characters powers, an area that if you look one post above, has been in heavy discussion because you can't agree on anything the network posts. Again, if you're not going to post the info, you might as well link to sites who will. JohnQ.Public 11:56, 16 October 2006
Thre is a link to the tv.com in the infobox, there is also a episode guide at List of Heroes episodes — You should read the article first. You'll also find i have visted tvrage and found it to have nothing of any value. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And with all due respect, I'd rather have someone in charge (you know, people who get paid to be here) tell me that. Not someone who self appointed himself as the editor of a page that "anyone can edit." If this is how you do everything on here, then it's no wonder this guide looks like hell. I'm openly requesting an Admin intervention citing that you are in no position to dictate what belongs here, and citing that you have a predjudice against a website that clearly is better constructed and has more info than TV.com. If you're going to allow that link to be here, than TVRage deserves a place without question. And if it can't be here, then TV.com needs to come down as well. JohnQ.Public 12:03, 16 October 2006
If it helps any, I'm an admin, and yes, in my consideration there is a conflict of interest in you adding a link to a site that you are involved with. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, specifically number 3 on the list. Now, if other, more neutral parties want to add the link, that's a whole other discussion on notability and such, but at the most basic level, you shouldn't add a link to a site that you are involved with. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 12:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And just as another note, none of us, not even the admins, are paid to be here. That alone suggests to me a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We are not a commercial site; we are volunteer. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Then TV.com needs to come down as well because it's more than obvious that there's a personal preference, if not complete biased opinion that TV.com must be better, because Fenton says so. I think it's rather unfair that our site is not allowed to be linked, despite having info that Wikipedia AND TV.com do not have. If you check the histroy section, our site was added at least TWICE before by other users only to be deleted by this guy. And every time, what does he list it as? "Spam." As if TV.com's horrible guide and massive flash ads aren't spam. We're the third most visited TV info site behind TV and Futon Critic, we deserve to be a source of info for these pages. And if TVRage can't stay, then TV.com needs to come down as well. And if all you're doing is allowing it to stay because of his preference and the Alexa ranking, then allow me to quote from a few other pages I've read that have had Admin's step in... "Frequent hits do not make a site creditable, only frequently visited." JohnQ.Public 12:52, 16 October 2006
TV.com is a notable website, TVRage is not (as evidenced that it has been deleted multiple times..) — You also have a personal involvement in the website, to me the fact that you need to palce your links into wikipedia shows that your not very popular and need the traffic. Your also a commercial website, lots of commerical websites are not required. (PS: Would you care to cite why you think your the 3rd most visited? – and if so you've said it your self.. 3rd, not 1st or 2nd, 3rd..) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And why would you go to such great legnths to delete a website of information? All you're doing is trying to get off track and detract from the real point. You deleted a website that clearly had info Wikipedia does not have. And you deleted it because it's in competition with you best "source" of info. And all you've done is tried to twist my words to make your point. I don't care if you know that I am involved with it, and I don't care if you think it's spam. The end result is that you deleted a source of info based off personal preference. And before you go looking for a WP:Loophole to justify your cause, I'll tell you right now I don't care about those either because they're just rules God-Kings use to hide behind, and they often don't apply to the situation. I think this is completely unfair, and is just a firm example of why people don't like Wikipedia and it's community. It's no wonder CNN and MSNBC declaired this website a failure. Anyone can edit, but not everyone's opinion matters. And it's a damn shame that the one Admin who bothered to poke their head in automatically sided with the God-King and didn't even bother to take a neutral stance to decide the situation, or give me an option to prove it belongs here. JohnQ.Public 13:03, 16 October 2006

You're still not getting it. Matthew Fenton can add TV.com legitimately because he's not involved with it (not to mention that TV.com is highly notable and has been around for literally years in one form or another). Someone else might be able to add TVRage, but you adding it is a conflict of interest. If TVRage is indeed considered notable by someone, someone else will add it, and then the debate will start as to whether it does indeed fit the criteria for notability. But it shouldn't be you, or anyone associated with the website or with an interest in it. (please also note the admonishment against sockpuppetry, in case any ideas come from this)
You asked for a neutral opinion: you got one. Just because it isn't the one you like doesn't mean that it isn't neutral. If I'd sided with you, would you have started yelling, "A Daniel has come to judgment!"? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 13:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No Khaos, actually I would have thanked you and waited until some other Admin came in and decided to delete it, only for another to come around and put it to a vote, like it ALWAYS does. And no Fenton, I know you're not going to debate it. You're going to do to that post exactly what you did to mine and the two before me. You're going to revert it back, and just pretend it was never added without discussion. The only reason it's in discussion here right now, is because I pushed for it, AND had to add a note showing you I put a discussion point in here when I added the link the first time. This is so pathetic, because this is all I'm going to be doing the rest of my life when it comes to this place. Hell, our website could be in the top 1000, and I know for a fact we'd still be debating people with no lives as to whether our site is "Spam" and "Not Noteable." If you're such a neurtal expert Khaos, why don't you tell me what the hell we have to do to prove to this place that we're a creditable information site, and not just a load of spam like this guy tried to passed us off as? JohnQ.Public 13:29, 16 October 2006
You need to get a good enough, and widespread enough reputation that you actually get mentioned in other media. Or be known enough and well-used enough that other people - not you - will actually add your links to Wikipedia. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You dont just add links to Wikipedia Johnathan, wikipedia is not a link database, presently your site has nothing that the IMDb and TV.com dont cover, a link must have relevance before being added, and even then it must be notable under some circumstances (as to which yours is obviously not if you have to add it your self) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... you're right Fenton. We don't cover anything different than them.. because we tend to cover the exact same thing. You may have heard of it, it's called Television. What a concept that two websites devoted to television information and cataloging would be covering the same shows and networks. So yeah, we don't cover anything different than they do. We just do a better job of it. But you really haven't explored the site and given us a fair chance, have you? Because if you did you'd see for a fact we're doing better work than them. So your opinion of us doesn't mean a thing to me. And Khaos, the last time we tried that, every thing we presented was called "Not Notable" by jerks like Fenton. And every time someone not involved with us adds us somewhere, we're deleted the next day. So, thanks for the advice, but it's been clearly shown by your community that we're not welcome here in any shape or form. JohnQ.Public 13:50, 16 October 2006
All I can really say is this: if your site is really that good, it doesn't need you to shill for it here, nor does it need Wikipedia. You're perfectly entitled to hold this entire project in contempt and storm off to Wikitruth (a place I believe has more than a few valid points about the project) — more power to you. If you stopped pushing, complaining about unfairness and doing your level best to alienate people, there'd probably be a better chance for TVRage to be added here in future. As it is, your reaction to this entire affair, I suspect, has poisoned a lot of minds against you. That may not be adhering to neutrality, but unfortunately that's social dynamics for you. Take a break, come back later, or not. But honestly? This isn't getting anyone anywhere, and trying to steamroller it through isn't going to get you anywhere either. Good luck. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

JohnQPublic is a contributor to the TVRage site. Its article was deleted twice in early 2006 via the AFD process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVrage.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination). He's been warned about WP:SPAM and WP:EL policies in the past, but has basically refused to abide by them. On top of his constant personal attacks, I've blocked him for an extended period of time--Madchester 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that TVRage should be removed. I'm also gonna look at TV.com to see if it's truly worthy either. I'm not involved in any part of this, just another editor to the page. ThuranX 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tv.com is far more thorough than TVRage's page, but even so, It's mostly a site which links to other sites and pages, and does little original work. Neither really deserces to be here ,so I think Fenton's got the right attitude. ThuranX 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The "S" Symbol

should we include a page and link about the occurances of the "S" symbol? it's shown up in a lot of places. off the top of my head, it's in the DNA computer program, isaac has it painted when future hiro is in his studio, the floats in the pool, the mysterious man was wearing is as a pendant, peter drew it in the corner of his sketch. it's been a lot of places. --Sdp4408 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it probably doesn't need its own page at the moment, but perhaps a new section on either this page, or each episode's page, listing the appearances of the symbol, would be useful. Or... perhaps this would be considered "original research".
BTW, is there an image of this symbol on Wikipedia yet?
--Psiphiorg 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw the symbol in the latest episode (#4) -- when Niki undresses infront of Nathan, the symbol is a tatoo on her right shoulderblade (however she was in her "Dark" alter ego at the time so maybe the symbol has a connection to it). 4.172.237.137 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Do it. It's been in every single episode.

i think the symbol has something to do with the powers themselves. it seems to show up in locations where the powers are being used, or have been used. kind of like a breadcrumb trail. did you notice in episode 4 that the "mysterious man" seemed to need to focus on his pendant before he could do whatever it is to matt? also, it was a tattoo on nicki's double. i wonder if the real nicki has a tattoo there. --Sdp4408 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe all of the heroes have this symbol because they were unknowingly bioengineered with their powers by a company whose logo was this "S" shape. Could the "S" possibly stand for Sylar?167.206.248.250 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC

Supporting Characters

We need a brief list or chart for the major supporting characters. Each of the 'heroes' seems to have one, well, sidekick, for lack of a better term. In each case, there is enough information to justify a single line chart entry. Prefacing the chart with a link to the main article is fine, but this page should be the main page for the subject, and not a long set of sub-page links. ThuranX 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, X. Is there enough info for such a wikitable? And, quite frankly, what's wrong with a few subpage links? Characters are usually spun off into their own article(s) with a brief summary of that article's content, anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A few, nothing. but this entire page consists of one highly conflict oriented table and a stack of links. It should be about far more. ThuranX 02:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I'll take another look at the page as a whole. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, X. I just couldn't think of a way to make it work. The whole issue is summarization. The main wikitable, for all the fighting, is the only thing that seems to work, excluding the occapution field. What you acting for is the very stuff we split off to avoid crowding. In Sylar's case, a summary on top of a summary. I've tried to wrap my mind around short descriptions, like the ones for characters currently without articles. I dunno. Maybe we should just put all the characters in one article and extend the main wikitable to all characters, possibly with the addition of a "relatives" field. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At one time, we had most ofthe truly major characters in there... then it got filled withthe dog and so on. we DO need some major non-powered peopel in the main characters box, like Claire's step-dad. We also really ought to have Ando, Zack, and so on in there. these aren't the incidental folks, but major players in the game, appearing in all episodes so far. They've played serious parts in advancing the plots, and so on. ThuranX 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bennet aka Horned rimmed glasses aka Claire's step-father is due to become a full-time series regular on the 11th episode. http://www.superherohype.com/news/heroesnews.php?id=4837 As such he should be added to the list of series regulars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 8.10.52.72 (talk)

I've added the information to his entry on the minor characters page where I'm thinking he should stay for now until we have a bit more information. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Monticeto

When Hiro and Ando got thrown out of the casino, the sign clearly said "Monticeto". I know that the interior was different, but the sign was there. I put this in a trivia section, and someone took it off, claiming that it wasn't the Monticeto.--Radaar 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be ACE, he does that from time to time, he's a bit of a fanatic about certain things. However, I just read up on Hiro's blog, and he does in fact mention that it is the Monticeto. Someone should add it back to either his page, or the episode page with a reference back to his specific blog post. --DJ Chair 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
at least get the spelling right. Montecito. Rihk 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha. It was X, actually. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I hate how it is phrased right now. It makes it sound like they both take place in the same fictional universe, such as Las Vegas and Crossing Jordan or how all the Laws & Order are in the same universe. But Heroes does not take place in the same fictional universe and easy to tell such as the hotel looked nothing the same, plus it’s a show about super heroes. They just use the same fictional name so I will rewrite it. - DidYouLoseASock 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Novel Easter Eggs

I can understand the first three easter eggs since they are located on the NBC website. Yet, the fourth one I believe is just an advertisement for a fan site. It is located on MySpace and not on NBC.com, so I am having a hard time buying it. --Pinkkeith 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you view the fourth comic on-line (not PDF) and click on a page, it brings up that MySpace page in a new window. A number of media companies are using MySpace now, usually in conjunction with a more traditional website (e.g. at "www.moviename.com" or "www.studio.com/moviename"). For example, the movie Accepted has a site here, and John Tucker Must Die has one here.
I recently saw an TV commercial for a movie (I forget which one) that actually used a MySpace URL as their official site (which rather surprised me at the time), but I guess it is getting to be more common. It is, after all, great viral marketing... if someone adds "Movie" or "Character" as a friend, the link shows up on their page as well, and gets spread around.
--Psiphiorg 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, my guess is that the page is affiliated with either NBC or the production company. youngamerican (yo) 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The 5th graphic novels easter egg, on the other hand, is not the Nissan Versa website, that "easter egg" appears when u go into read mode and click on any of the nissan versa adds in any of the comics (1-4) meaning if its the easter egg for 5 (since the only place you can get it is on page 1 of comic 5) it is also an easter egg for comics 1-4. That being said, someone should take the time to look for the correct easter egg, and correct the mistake on the wiki, since that is not the 5th comics easter egg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.2.91 (talkcontribs) 04:19, October 31, 2006
Okay, okay. Don't repeat yourself. Gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! :-D I am searching for the easter egg though, if i do find it, i will be sure to post it. 71.196.2.91 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a different section for other (non-Graphic novel) easter eggs? Example-if you go to the main nbc heroes page and click on the "Come Visit" sign (to the right of Mohinder's head) in the flash picture, you get some of the Text messages between Ando and Niki (not sure if this can be considered an easter egg or not). Also, there is a link to Claire's MySpace page if you go to her cast description and click on the bookbag/book in the background of the flash picture. --arrow61095 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there should be a separate easter egg section since there are many of them, it would make sense... --131.94.253.111 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the easter egg for the 5th graphic novel is. But the one for the 6th is a picture of peter http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/HRS_PeterDoor2.jpg --arrow61095 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Occupation field

In the main character section, the occupation field of the wikitable has been repeatedly removed and re-added. Can we get a consensus on this? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it kept. The politician's career certainly explains some of his connections to Linderman and so on, as does Niki's in conjunction with her location. Other character's careers may serve to explain, in simple general terms, more about their personas. Frankly, I get irritated every time I see it removed, and considering the editing blizzard since last night's episode, had thought to raise that very issue tonight. Glad you have beaten me to it. ThuranX 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
From the definition of occupation to the flucuation of information, the field has been nothing but trouble. Is is jobs or just activities/substitutes? How should someone be listed after they've quit their job? Should we really get out of our way to list character-specific information that is bound to change on the main page? Et cetera, et cetera. Yes, it was in the press releases. Yes, it might help clarify who's who and what not, but honestly, are the limited benefits worth the unlimited and unavoidable problems? The Table itself is still a big issue, why make it worse? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Simple. Use the most basic... Student, Cam Girl (not whore, which is not what's going on, there's no exchange of physical intercourse for compensation), Unemployed homecare nurse, salaryman, Artist, etc. There are always going to be editors with tiny minds and pin-heads who want to fill it out in ridiculous, usually uncited fashion, and in that regard, this page will be no different than any number of pages here on Wiki. This is the main page for this show, but right now, it's a trainwreck of linky, info-less bad-sucky-ness. I think that filling out the charts is one of the steps needed for it. I also think, as I've already said, that a brief chart identifying the sidekicks, villians and Dr. Suresh, whose research started the events (not self-discoveries) off, should be mentioned on this page more prominently.ThuranX 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that incorporating it into the main page isn't a bad idea, however, we should note some consistency (i.e. Claire and Micah don't work, so should it read "Unemployed" or list them as students?) Furthermore, Niki is actually a Cam Whore, if you look up the definition of Cam Whore, you'll see that it doesn't necessitate "physical" intimacy (especially as it's over the 'net.) Cam Whores usually get compensated by cash (which we've seen in the first episode) or gifts from online stores, i.e. Amazon.com, for flashing some skin. It's not a pretty term, but it's fitting in a world of technological advances... sadly, you can find a lot of cam whores that are underage on the web (sometimes mommys and daddys shouldn't be so willing to allow little Sally to use her computer in her room... you never really know what's going on.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ Chair (talkcontribs) 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's more polite and no less accurate to use 'cam Girl', first off. Second, students should be called students. truly unemployed can be called such, however no one in the show is 'unemployed'. Peter is a former nurse, who quit in part due to his growing awareness of his powers within the context of the show, so 'former nurse' fits the character's situation within the context better. I think the column should return to the chart post-haste, however. It's useful for summarizing the characters more fully. ThuranX 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I'm not going to debate the politeness of cam girl to cam whore. I frankly believe it's an ugly term; however, until Cam girl has a wiki article that offers more accurate information as compared to Cam whore without getting redirected, I think we should call her what she is. --DJ Chair 08:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This field was deleted by someone with no explanation why it was done so. --Pinkkeith 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back in. I also added a picture column. Elliskev 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I like having the photo there, I wonder how long it's going to take before someone reverts it without good cause. --DJ Chair 08:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Niki's occupation is listed as "stripper," which seems misleading. I've read about the earlier arguments of "cam girl" vs. "cam whore," but I think either term would be an improvement over "stripper." Also, D.L. Hawkins is listed with an occupation of "Unknown." Since he was in prison, shouldn't that be considered his "occupation?" No, it's not a true occupation, but it answers the question for him the same way that "high school student" answers it for Claire. (And that's just ONE similarity between prison and high school.) I'm not sure how to word Hawkins' entry; perhaps "prisoner" or "escaped prisoner?" (For the record, I have made no edits to the article.) BJ Nemeth 02:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What about fugitive? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  02:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Fugitive, while in ways accurate, doesn't explain from what or who. Perhaps "escaped convict"? Refers more to the fact that he was tried and convicted of a crime. I mention this because I doubt it will be long till we can see Nathan as a fugitive from HRM's forces. ThuranX 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To address the original question: if it came to a vote I'd say nix the occupations. Each character has a separate article dedicated to them, and it will serve this article much better if we can clearly delineate what is "communal knowledge" vs. "character knowledge." Hobophobe 04:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

End of episode "twists"

So far every episode has ended with a twist usually a pretty big one; HRG comming home and turning out to be Clairs dad, Clair waking up on the coroners table, Hiro comming back from the future ect... if this trend continues it might be worth noting in the main article. I say this as it seems to be unique among other over arching shows such as 24, Veronica Mars, BSG non of which use a similar technique. -- Argash | talk | contribs 08:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An end-of-episode twist certainly isn't unique to Heroes. It's a larger trend in television, moving away from self-contained episodes that always end with the status quo (like traditional sit-coms). The end-of-episode twist is an old technique that dates back to the old cliffhanger serials that our grandparents watched in movie theaters. The twists should be included in episode recaps of course, but merely having such twists is not noteworthy to the show itself. BJ Nemeth 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I heard on the news the other day that tv shows are becoming more and more expensive to create. These days, if its not a gritty police drama or a "heartstopping" thriller show like 24, House, The Nine, Heroes, Lost, ect, it just won't get enough ratings. of course i dont have a source for this, but whatever. dposse 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to the wiki process in some ways - can we get this section archived/deleted? It seems moot.155.188.183.7
typically individual items on talk pages are not archived individual but in whole chunks every so often as the need arises. I created the first archive some time last week, if we continue at this pace we'll probably be archiving again in another few weeks. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  19:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

the symbol

i haven't personally noticed this reaccurring symbol. can someone please get a few pictures of it on the article? thanks. dposse 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to the person who posted the image of the symbol. I was wondering which episode this was taken from since it was posted as a screen shot. It looks like one of Isaac Mendez's paintings. --Pinkkeith 18:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing thing about whether the symbol is an RNA molecule or halkf a DNA molecule. I think that since RNA is a single helix, and DNA a double, it should be assumed until furtehr notice that it is an RNA molecule. What do you think?

(formerly from archive 6)

Character Ages

Should we delete this section all together, because the characters will age as the series progresses. Clair's age on the NBC site lists her as 17 years old while on the myspace page it has her listed as 18 years old. --Pinkkeith 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you here, I think that we should recognize NBC as being the primary information holder, and only officially endorsed sites should be used to alter or add information. So, while the NBC site and the episodes are okay sources for information, a MySpace account (that anyone can create) should be viewed as unofficial, and potentially harmful for information gathering efforts. --DJ Chair 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, the myspace site was created by the creator of the show. Yet, that's not the point. The point is that it should be changed to "born on" rather then "age" since age will change and need to be constantly updated. --Pinkkeith 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you verify that the MySpace account was in fact created by the creator? Furthermore, until someone else rules on this, I will presume that since Wikipedia is a temporal website, we shouldn't bother being concerned with changing her age, because the only official reference that so far has been uncovered reflecting her age is the NBC site. What do others think? Is age important, and should we use the official site or a site that has had a deplorable past on verifying the age and identity of those who register on it? --DJ Chair 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's linked as an easter egg off of the Claire Bennet web comic, which implies some kind of official endorsement, at least. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was assuming that it was created by the creator of the show, but there is little doubt that it is endorsed by NBC. I thought it was a fan creation myself until I saw the Easter Egg. I think that a birth date should be given since it is static. Sure wiki can be changed, but why go in and change it all the time if you can just put in a birth date? I don't know of any other people (fictional or otherwise) that say how old someone is right now. They just mention when they were born. --Pinkkeith 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The myspace site is handle by people in the writer's office (though not the creator himself). Claire's age is listed as "18" because myspace restricts access to profiles of minors. Ollie 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There's going to be no need to change the age for a long time. A recent TV Guide interview indicated that "November 8th" in the show world will likely not occur until the end of the season, so any aging will be minimal. Even if you don't trust TV guide, all the episodes so far have taken up a week at most. Ages are fine - if NBC updates the official profile, then we can change them. Until then, I don't see any need to worry about it. --dws90 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
For living people, birthdates are always preferable to ages, because they never change. However, the timeline of this show will probably drift further and further away from our real-world timeline over several seasons, making birthdays misleading. For example, the TV show Lost is in its third season, but on the show they are only in their third month. It's been nearly two years (our time) since a baby was born on the island, but on the show, it is still less than two months old. Because of this, I think a character's age is preferable to their birthdate. BJ Nemeth 02:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I still say use birthday, because most people it's in relation to the show. Hiro came from the future to talk to Peter, but who knows how old Hiro is at that point? Or we can get overly anal and do birthdate/age in the show to keep people from thinking too hardKnightrojen

Plagiarism

It appears that heroeswiki.com has plaigrised episode synopsies from Wikipedia, specificly: Genesis has been lifted and put: here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What can we do about it? dposse 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Under the terms of the GFDL, they're supposed to acknowledge the source. Someone should send them a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter if they haven't. This one in particular is useful for someone who has actually contributed to the article to complain. It may be worth sending. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
All seems fine now, theyve acknowledged wikipedia as the source (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There isn't copy right protection on wiki articles. All of the articles are part of public domain. --Pinkkeith 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No, there licensed under the GFDL for exampel the edit box:

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

You can read: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, and Wikipedia:Copyrights as well Face-smile.svg. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a copyright for the software, not the content of the articles. --Pinkkeith 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
.... No its not read this again: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content: first line, "The text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)." --Pinkkeith 14:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The text is licensed under the terms of the GFDL, which requires acknowledgment of sources for verbatim copying, under Section 2 of the license. It is not public domain in the legal sense of the word. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I understand now. --Pinkkeith 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

incorrect names on NBC site

Why is it that on the NBC website some of the characters names are misspelled on the interactive parts of the site. For example if you click on Simone and then go to her journal, her last name is spelled "Devere" instead of "Deveaux" and then Isaac last name is, instead of "Mendez", all of a sudden "Barolo". Who the hell was writing this up? 69.119.252.174 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Hiro needs to stop messing with the time travel! ;) (unsigned comment)
Most likely, the NBC site was based on an early draft of the pilot episode. Character names often change from the first draft to the final episode. Sometimes it's because of casting (for example, the doctor on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was named Julian Amaros early on, but then changed to Julian Bashir after Siddig el Fadil was cast in the role); other times there are legal reasons (for example, the captain on Enterprise was names Jackson Archer in early drafts, but after a name search revealed that there was exactly one "Jackson Archer" living in the U.S. at the time, the name was changed to Jonathan Archer, because there are more of them); and other times just because the producers/writers changed their minds about the name of the character. I don't know the reasons behind these particular changes, though. --Psiphiorg 20:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That would also explain why the ages are incorrect on there too. :) --Pinkkeith 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please let me know if you find any others, I can have NBC update the site. Ollie 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Connections to LOST universe

it has been proposed here the creators of LOST and Heroes (who worked together) are invovled in a secret collaboration and that the shows exsist within the same universe. Couldn't find more into to cite, what do you think?

Unless one of them says that it is true or something, it's something that is reserved to forums. JQF 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
More searching found it actually cited here, which the other article indicated, but the acknowledgement is tongue in cheek at best. InfoMage
I remember when Magnum PI and Simon & Simon did a cross over episode, so it is not unheard of. Yet, they were both on CBS and Heroes is on NBC and Lost is on ABC. I can't see this happening. --Pinkkeith 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The Practice (ABC) and Ally McBeal (Fox) did a crossover once, and I think someone from The Practice appeared on Boston Public (Fox) as well. Those were all David E. Kelley shows. However, I seem to recall Fox affiliates being upset that the Ally McBeal story was going to be continued on ABC the same night, because that was expected to cut into local programming at 9pm (10pm ET/PT). So I imagine that the networks would look at the affiliate anger in that situation as a drawback to any sort of direct crossover.
--Psiphiorg 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Similarly David E. Kelley tried to do a crossover between Picket Fences and the X-Files (which wasn't his show but he was a fan) and the networks nixed it (or at least one of them did). I agree with the above person who said to wait for confirmation from one of the two shows before it's added to the article though, until then it's rumor only. -Markeer 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear frickin' lord, don't start more of this crap. ThuranX 18:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So the pilot from LOST gets killed by a monster and then goes on to be a cop somehow. Or does he quit being a cop and become a pilot and get killed by the monster? --67.23.10.201 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they're twin brothers, or just strangers who happen to look an awful lot alike (just devil's advocating). Applejuicefool 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporting characters names from credits info?

The names of some important supporting characters are given in credit information presented in, for instance, the TV.com site. Peter and Nathan's mom is Angela Petrelli, Claire's brother is Lyle Bennett, for instance. Should we add this to the characters' stats? Currently it says Peter has an "unnamed mother"... Renenarciso 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look and make the corrections. Still, don't trust TV.com for everything. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
imdb.com also has the credits for the episodes. Renenarciso 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but everybody and their mother can edit imdb. It should no more be used as an authoritative source than Wikipedia should... perhaps even less so, since at least Wikipedia lets you see who added the information, and you can cite sources.
--Psiphiorg 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm some names, short of scanning cover pages, not sure how to really prove it to you, but feel free to use if you wish. Angela Petrelli and Lyle Bennet is correct. Jackie is Jackie Wilcox (upcoming episode, so feel free to wait if you want). Paulette Hawkins is DL's mother (Niki says it, but it's a little garbled). The only name I have dispute with, is "Paul Sylar, which I've brought up in the discussion on that page (Talk:Sylar) Ollie 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Save the Cheerleader. Save the world.

Yes, i know i already created this topic and someone moved it. However, things are different now. "Save the cheerleader, Save the world" is, as of the episode "Hiro's", now a huge part of the Heroes series. It, as of episode "Hiro's", involves Future Hiro, the Painter, Peter, Mohinder Suresh, Hiro, and Ando Masahash. Oh, and not to mention the cheerleader herself, Clarie. So, where should this infomation go? It's bigger than one persons character page. dposse 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's important enough, and actually does involve a major plot point of the show involving multiple characters, why not on the show's main article? Rihk 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed this needs to go in the main article but not sure what format it should go in or where but it deffinatly needs to be there somewhere-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It should probably go somewhere under Synopsis. JQF 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC}

Stories with premises similiar to Heroes

Rising Stars

The premise of Heroes among us is not a new idea and has been explored in comic books such as Rising Stars and the wikipedia page for rising stars includes a reference to Heroes. I'm not sure how or where best to add it but I encourage someone to add a mention in the main article. Horkana

We had a section listing various stories similar in premise, but ulimately the list was too big and not focused enough on the TV series to be included in the article. I still think a separate article or category should be made, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bug? / Viral Ad?

Not sure if it is a bug with my DVR or if it was done on purpose. Was watching Heroes on 10/23 on the RCN DVR on NBC. I tried to fast forward through the commercial and once it got to the commercial for Deja Vu the movie, it stopped and asked me if I wanted to stop the play back. I hit no and it goes to the beginning of the Deja Vu commercial. Anytime I try to fast forward after that it pops up the same message and when I say no, it goes back to the Deja Vu commercial. Pretty freaky. Anyone else see this? Or is this just a bug on my DVR Tazzy531 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I get home in the morning that sounds like a pretty ingenious ad though if it's true. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I watched Heroes on DVR today without any problems. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't own a DVR, so I am a bit unsure how they work, but I wonder if this is somehow caused by the fact that the commercial repeats the first second or two twice. Perhaps the DVR notices it's playing the same thing over again, and thinks something is amiss. Applejuicefool 14:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

fixed the character promo photos

for those that didn't notice the photo of clair/hayden was removed for not being properly sourced. I have fixed this issue on her photo as well as on several of the other cast members. Also while doing this i noticed that most were improperly licensed as screenshots, I have fixed all of those to properly use the promophoto license. this is just a friendly reminder to make sure you properly source all media and apply the proper licensing to it. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Heroes??

With the knowledge of a full season ordered and great ratings, is it too early to set up a wikiproject? EnsRedShirt 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While I would support it, it's most likely a bit early. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Still season 1, to early tbh. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
waaay too early. ThuranX 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would we need one, anyway? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You guys say its way too early but I think it's never too early. There's like 3 or 4 that have been created already but many of them are very amateur. This one is the only one that has really managed to get a lot of good information together in addition to taking full advantage of the wiki format. I'm recently active there and I think the more it gets known, the better it will become. --Capn 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He was referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do I think we need a wikiproject? look no farther than Hiro's The page has undergone three page moves and my guess will soon be a fourth. (((We can't seem to agree on a spelling, let alone if we will set a standard naming convention..) We also have people already discussing the possiblity of having an article just for Isacc's Paintings. We also have articles on all the characters, which in a series like this I can almost guarantee will grow through out the seasons, plus diffrent items, including the 9th Wonders Comic. Why not start a wikiproject now and be ahead of the game, instead of playing catch up later???? In the long run we get better articles with less work involved. EnsRedShirt 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because some editors are illiterate doesn't mean we should get a WP. it's Hiros, not HIro's. ThuranX 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that when a TV series has as many separate articles devoted to it as this one has, and there are so many changes being made to them daily, then its not too early to start a WikiProject, provided there are enough people interested in working together to bring some uniformity of terminology and presentation throughout these related articles, by coming to agreement on a single WikiProject:Heroes talk page. The only problem I see is that, this early in the series, alot of decisions may need to be revisited as the show develops, but that is already happening within the individual articles. Primogen 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly.. EnsRedShirt 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to start the process and see how much interest it generates. I agree we need to set some standards I just think they could be done in here for now. That said I would certainly support the effert and would be the first to sign up. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  19:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I put it on List of proposed wikiprojects. I also put a small summary on my user page. Still being fairly new to wikipedia, and never doing anything like this before, if anyone wants to add or remove anything to the summary please feel free, just leave me a note on my talk page if you edit my user page. EnsRedShirt 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You haven't listed a temporary project page. Ah well. You linked to userpage. So, you're really serious about this? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why Wou;dn't I be serious about it?EnsRedShirt 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Midnight's Children

Is it just me or does no one see the similarities with Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's Children"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.210.94 (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)