This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Talk:List of character appearances by episode/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
< Talk:List of character appearances by episode
Revision as of 17:06, 21 April 2010 by imported>PJDEP (New page: {{archivepage}} {{tocright}} ==Appearances== * I think you folks are just using this article as an excuse to watch all of the episodes again ;) --Orne 16:38, 8 February 200...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:List of character appearances by episode/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:List of character appearances by episode. Archive.jpg

Appearances

  • I think you folks are just using this article as an excuse to watch all of the episodes again ;) --Orne 16:38, 8 February 2007 (EST)


Jessica

I haven't been listing her separately because it's not always clear when she's "appeared", and because ... well, I was going from the synopses mostly and the early ones obviously don't mention her by name, so it just slipped my mind. Do you think we should add her?--Hardvice (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2007 (EST)

  • I kind of look at this list as more of an actor list than a character list, though they're listed by characters. (Oh, and Hank will finally get his due for Distractions!) I don't think anybody will look at this list and think, "What?! Wasn't Jessica in that episode? They left her out? I'm so angry I could have my alter ego snap a baton!" ... That said, it wouldn't hurt having her in there, just not necessary in my opinion. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2007 (EST)
    • Towards the middle of the season especially, the line between Niki and Jessica is really blurry. It's one thing to talk about them as separate beings in a history, since so much of their history overlaps. However, to list them separately, or especially to say "this is the moment she appears" or "Jessica appeared 18 times, but Niki appeared 19" seems like we're trying to pick apart something that is not meant to be dissected. I mean, even the writers have said they were purposely blurring the lines between the two characters so they almost became one. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Layout

Also, the multicolumn layout is pretty much essential since this would otherwise be an incredibly annoying long, thin list, but does anyone think it would be better to have each episode broken into three or four columns, and then have the episodes as rows, like this:

Genesis


I think it would make the page structure better, but it makes it slightly harder to find who you're looking for and makes the order of appearance less clear. Opinions?--Hardvice (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2007 (EST)

  • Well, I didn't know you could use headings in a column, so I learned something new. But yes, you're right, the structure would be a bit better with the four columns for one episode, rather than one episode in each of three columns. Good thinking. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2007 (EST)
    • Yes, yes, the new format is much easier to read. And cuter, to boot. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2007 (EST)
      • Does any one see the same thing i do? I notice that "Genesis" is at the top of the page but there's a lot of white space until you get to the characters. Rayhond 22:30, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
        • What browser are you using? What's your screen resolution? It looks OK to me in IE7, Firefox, and Safari. It's probably a problem with the TOC.--Hardvice (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
          • Yeah it is with my browser too, and I have used three different computers. Random guy 23:34, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Consideration of Incorporation

I had noticed that the individual episode pages themselves, didn't contain the list of characters that appeared in each episode. When doing research, that is pretty annoying not to have there. I just happened to stumble upon this page, which has the same effect, but isn't listed with the individual episodes.

Could we not add an additional section to each epi, following the Summary Section, that looks something like this:

(Example using Company Man Epi Page)

Character Appearances
Candace, Claire, Claude, Hiro, Kaito Nakamura, Lyle, Matt, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Muggles, Sandra, Ted, The Haitian, and Thompson.

Wouldn't this be more useful and readily helpful for doing research through the episodes, if each epi contained this info?

I'll be willing to do the work to add the section to each Epi, (and a similar application to the GNs as well), if you guys agree this would be a useful enhancement to the Epi pages. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 15:11 (EST)

  • If we put them in the individual episodes, I'd like to see them in order of appearance like they are here, rather than in alphabetical order. That's occasionally useful information to have (like the spoilers about Simone's death which referred to someone from "the opening moments of Genesis" dying).--Hardvice (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm not opposed to the idea, but I have some concerns, in no particular order. The episode pages are quite bloated already, and I'm afraid adding character appearances would just make them even more ... portly. Each episode page already links to the appearances page--the link is usually in the trivia, but I think the link could stand to be a bit more prominent (perhaps in the See Also section). If we were to list the characters on the episode page, I would do it in order of appearance, not alphabetical. A search for a particular character is pretty easy to do either by visual scan or by doing a page search (usually ctrl+F on most browsers). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • As for formatting, if we were to add these to the episodes (which I'm mildly in favor of), I'd like to keep the same formatting as here. It uses a bit more space than a straight list, but it's also less ... oppressive ... and easier to read--a nice balance between text and whitespace. And the appearance number and bold for new characters is, again, nice information to have handy at a glance.--Hardvice (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I have no problem with sort-order, both ways have their merits. How about I do one with an epi, as an experiment, and you guy slook at it, and see what you think about its effect on the bloat, and then we decide to either accept it, and do them all the same; or revert it and just do your alternate suggestion of making a consistent entry link for the appearances page in the "See Also" section? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 15:41 (EST)
      • I agree with Ryan here. The ep pages have a ton of content already, and if I want to find a certain character in the synopsis, a quick scan of each paragraph usually does it. Heroe!(talk) 15:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
        • Ok Guys, I just added a blurb section to Company Man to see what it would look like with a 'Character Appearance' within the epi. Everyone go and look at it, and see what you think as far as space taken up, format, usefulness, etc... And then come back and share your thoughts. If everyone hates the idea, we can roll that one back, and look at it from another way. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 15:54 (EST)
          • Another thing to consider, would be moving the 'Watch Online' section (which is small in footprint size anyway), down to the "See Also section, as a line item. Those freeing up the space that the new Character Appearance section would use; and netting about even with what we have to begin with. Just another thought. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 16:00 (EST)
            • I think "Watch Online" should be the first section after the summary, ahead of Story Development or appearances. I also think we should include it in the AOTW when the episodes start back up.--Hardvice (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
              • Exactly. the "Watch Online" should stay near the top and definitely before the synopsis. That way someone doesn't read through the lengthy synopsis only to find out they could have watched the episode online themselves. (Admin 16:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT))
          • The space doesn't bother me, and I think it's useful to have on the episode pages. That said, it looks really clumsy in a blurb, and kind of competes with the "story development" blurb. I'd rather just cut-n-paste the episode section from this article.--Hardvice (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
          • OK, I just re-edited the new section, and changed it from a blurb with continous names listed, (remmed out), to a list format copied from this page. I used small fonts, to lessen the footprint. Personally, I think the prior version is cleaner, and neater, and takes up less space. What do you guys think? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 16:18 (EST)
            • I took out the tocright because it never, ever looks good on articles with a sidebar. Otherwise, I think it's a huge improvement ... it doesn't clash with story development nearly as much, and it's easier to read with a little whitespace. It does make Thompson and Candace in Story Development seem kind of redundant, though.--Hardvice (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Ok, so it looks like everyone agrees it is a good idea to add to the epis. Which of the two formats is preferred?

Example Draft 1)
Character Appearances


Mr. Muggles (11), Ted (5), Matt (13), Mr. Bennet (16), Claire (17), Sandra (12), Lyle (6), Thompson (1), Claude (5), Kaito Nakamura (3), Hiro (17), The Haitian (11), and Candace Willmer (1)

OR

Example Draft 2)
Character Appearances


--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 16:38 (EST)

  • I don't think "everybody agrees". I think you and I agree. That said, if it's a comma-delimited list in a blurb, I'd just as soon not see it on the page at all. I really intensely dislike having two blurbs right on top of each other--particularly when they are different widths, and I really think a comma-delimited list is just gawdawful design (if it had to go in a blurb, I'd rather see bullets, like, oh I don't know, every other blurb on the entire site.)--Hardvice (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I personally don't care either way. I just think the section would be worthwhile in each Epi page. The only benefit I see of the blurb-style, is because it takes up a smaller footprint, and less space. As far as two blurbs right on top of each other, what if the Story Development blurb was removed "as a section", and moved down to be within the initial part of the Summary Section, since "Story Development" is essentially a super-generic overview of "the Summary" to begin with anyway? Also, is there anyway to decrease the vertical space height between rows in the table view version?--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 16:59 (EST)
      • The vertical spacing is a result of the fact that the <small> tags only apply to the text, not the bullets (which get their formatting from the default stylesheet). You can override the formatting by switching them from asterisks to <li>, which can take a style= or a class= attribute to override the stylesheet, but I'm not convinced we even need to bother with the small font. If the section is worth having, it's worth having, and if it's not, it's not. There's no point in resorting to awkward formatting just to make it smaller. It's not a question of "how little space can we take up?", it's a question of "does this article benefit from this content?"--Hardvice (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Character appearances may work better at the end of the page. I am not sure if it looks better with or without the blurb. The small text may be unnecessary as it doesn't take up any less space because of the bullets. -Lөvөl 17:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I really like the idea, now that I've seen it. I definitely do not like the blurb, no matter where it is. I agree with Level, it should probably go at the bottom of the page, perhaps just above the notes; otherwise, it'd be best to leave it as a See Also link. If it's at the bottom, I don't think it needs to be small text. The other change I'd like to see is the parenthetical number of appearances and even the bold text. They make sense on the list of character appearances by episode, but not so much on the episode pages. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
        • OK, just made a third-draft. Punted the blurb format that noone likes, and redid the Company Man guinea pig, with the Character Appearances section moved to the bottom, and removed the small font. Also, I remmed out the Notes section of non-appearing characters, which the table renders redundant, so actually there is no space-loss in adding the table. Is this the best draft so far? Do we have a concensus on the inclusion or removal of the parenthetical counts on the epi page that Ryan mentioned? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 17:32 (EST)
          • That's my favorite so far. Good call moving it down on the page.--Hardvice (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
            • I'll be willing to volunteer to do the work of implementing this across all epis, if everyone agrees to the format(since it was my idea). I will removed the redundant NOTES section from each one, "IF" all it contains is a list of absent characters, which most of them do. Otherwise, I will leave Notes if they are relating to something else. What does everyone thing about inclusion or removal of the parenthetical counts on the epi pages? Keep or remove? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/5/2007 17:58 (EST)
              • The list is looking great on each episode page, and I like the link back to this page. I'm still not sure we need to have the parenthetical number of appearances on the episode pages. On this page it makes total sense--it's a running tally of how many times a character appears on Heroes. On the episode pages, it's very out of place--the purpose of the list on those pages seems to be to simply list the people that appeared, not to keep a running tally. There's no explanation of the numbers (as there is on this page), and really no need for one. It should just be "Character Appearances" and then a list. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
                • I would kind of reluctantly agree. I don't think there's any problem with the counts per se; it's still good information. However, this page explains what they're for, and the episode pages don't. That said, the lazy bastard in me really likes that we can cut-n-paste the entire section from this article into the episode and vice-versa, only changing the section heading.--Hardvice (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
                  • ...and if you wanted to take it one step further, no reason this page couldn't be split out by episode and transcluded both here and on the episode pages. Though whether it would be worth it or not I couldn't say. As I always say, "Why put the same string in two character arrays when you could just put it into one and create a pointer to it?" Ok, well, I've never actually said that, but I may start. :) (Admin 15:19, 6 April 2007 (EDT))
                    • That's not a bad idea, Admin (though it's a terrible catchphrase). I think come episode time, there will be enough people clamoring to work on those checklists, that it won't be that big of a deal. But you make a good point. I, too, am quite the lazy bastard (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
                    • Doing them as templates would allow us to make the episode counts appear only on this page, and not on the episodes. We could also auto-bold people whose episode count is 1. Hmmm...--Hardvice (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
                    • OK, I tried this with Genesis (see here and here). It's not much more work to set up, and it should make adding missing characters or changing formatting much easier. It could probably be automated even further with templates for the column breaks and the table headers if we want to (which would make it easier for people to add new templates for new episodes, and would allow us to make global-level changes to the table/column formatting.)--Hardvice (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
                      • I think it's a great idea, and it will make formatting a lot easier. Two notes: first, I think the heading should either be added manually, or the whole thing needs to go at the very bottom--it's throwing off the headings again (just like the welcome template did, and the theories and spoiler templates did. Second, I don't think we need to do the same thing for all the graphic novel appearances. There are at most 7 characters in one episode, which is not unmanageable. Plus, I don't think we need to put the appearances on the GN pages. I'm not opposed, I just think it'll be more trouble than it's worth. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
                        • Can't we use fake headings like the ones on this page, with links to edit the template like the navbars? -Lөvөl 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Trivia?

  • "To date, only three episodes have featured the entire cast of first-season series regulars: Fallout, Godsend, and Parasite. .07%, The Hard Part, Landslide, and How to Stop an Exploding Man feature the entire surviving season one cast of regulars."
Huh? That sentence confuses me.... -- Lost Soul 03:21, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
  • It is confusing, and should probably be reworded. What it means, however, is that every one of the principal actors appeared in the first three episodes mentioned (Fallout, Godsend, and Parasite). The other four listed (.07%, The Hard Part, Landslide, and How to Stop an Exploding Man) had all principal actors who portrayed characters who were still alive (and even some who weren't). For instance, Isaac died in .07% and never appeared again. Simone wasn't in the last few episodes, either--she was dead. However, she was in a flashback/dream/manifestation of some freaky power/whatever in How to Stop an Exploding Man, interestingly enough. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

90 angry ronin and other groups

If we are going to exclude citing groups here, and punt the 90 angry ronin from the list, then we should be consistent throughout all episodes, and go back through the list and delete other non-individual citations (Linderman's thugs, Kaito's henchmen, Claude's pigeons, etc) there as well. Personally, I don't see the harm in documenting a group-character appearance, because eventually, they will either disappear, or rhey will individualize. By cataloging them here, we have a source of their first appearance, and the frequency of their appearance. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/9/2007 08:12 (EST)

  • Whenever possible, they should be broken into their members (Linderman's thugs should be Weasel and Big Guy). The others should probably be removed. Groups are not characters--the article is about the group, not its individual members--and it's too likely that one member of the group will make a later appearance as an individual, which will throw off all the episode counts and make a huge mess.--Hardvice (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
  • The pigeons are now the only group listed. Since they aren't actually on a Groups article, and are arguably as much a single character as the cockroach (it's not like it's the same bug every time), I don't see a problem with leaving them as-is. WE should try to make individual articles for Kaito's henchmen as characters and add them back in.--Hardvice (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
  • So, if "Turtle" has an appearance count, shouldn't "Waffles" or "Yatta!"? I know it sounds crazy, but so does having an appearance count for "Turtle" or "Cockroach".
    • "Waffles" and "Yatta!" are not characters, while Turtle and Cockroach are. --Radicell 23:39, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Appearances in a chart

I've taken the appearance data from this page and put all characters who were in more than one episode into a chart, at User:Psiphiorg/Appear.

It's a little rough right now, but I'd like to get some opinions on it. —Psiphiorg 12:45, 3 November 2007 (EDT)


Adam/Kensei

  • I went ahead and used template:pipe to display Adam under whatever name(s) he appeared with in the listed episode. While listing him as Adam from the get-go looks great and makes a lot of sense on this page, the same can't be said for the Character Appearances section of, say, Four Months Later...--since the article for Four Months Later... (rightly) makes no mention of him by that name. So now the links from Four Months Later... will point to the right character article, but the listing will display him with the name he went by in that episode. I've listed him as "Kensei/Adam Monroe" for Out of Time, which should make it easy enough for anyone tracking his appearances on this page to follow when we start listing him as "Adam".--Hardvice (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Tally Section?

Could we put up a tally section similar to List_of_character_appearances_by_graphic_novel#Tally? We could have lists for 30+ appearances, 20-29 appearances or something similar.

I've added a tally, based upon the figures in the article. Unlike the GN character tally, I havn't controlled it, though - mainly because my personal list is based upon actor's appearances, which differs from characters appearances (e.g. Sylar wasn't played by Zachary Quinto in his first appearances and some characters have been played by child actors as well etc.)
The numbers in the tally are however 100% identical with the numbers listed earlier in the article. Pierre 12:33, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

the haitian/german

in the fact at the bottom, it mentions campaign manager and linderman's guard. why not the Haitian and the German? - Tristan0709 17:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)

  • Hmm, probably because "the Haitian" and "the German" are their names, and they're not unnamed characters. "Campaign manager" is just a description, only characters with names like that qualify as unnamed characters. --Radicell 18:43, 8 December 2008 (EST)
    • Actually, all four of those characters are unnamed characters. "The Haitian" and "The German" are not their names, but descriptions, just as "Campaign manager" and "Linderman's guard" are description. However, the trivia at the bottom is almost correct--the two characters mentioned are human, whereas the Haitian and the German are evolved humans. But we should probably make that clear, especially since the Haitian and the German are still technically human, just an evolved type of human. I'll change the note to say that the two in question are not evolved humans. (As an aside, "The German" and "The Haitian" could also be considered nicknames since they've actually been referred to as such by other characters.) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)

A Proposition

So, we have bold for first appearances, should we have italics for last appearances? This adds to a format used elsewhere on the wiki. In cases like Daniel Linderman, I think we should italicize him for 1x22, and then again for every appearances afterwards, to show he is dead when he is appearing. Any arguments against this? -- Tristan0709 talk 03:53, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

  • I like the idea but it could get confusing... Would this be strictly to mark the episode a character died, or the last time we saw the character on-screen? Does this only apply to characters who have died? If this applies to all characters' latest appearance, alive or dead, what if the person only appeared in one episode? Would this mean everyone is italicized for the most recent episode until the next one airs? Maybe if we can make this more specific, we could work it out. If so, I'm all for it! --Skullman1392 04:40, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
    • I just realised, I may have been unclear in my above post. What I meant was: italics for the episode in which as character DIES onscreen. For those who appear and die in the same episode, we could to this (for 1x16): for Dale : Dale Smither (1), and for Simone: Simone (1), because they both died in the episode. Then, 1x23 would have Simone look like this: Simone (12), because she is still dead, but appearing again. -- Tristan0709 talk 05:09, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
      • Aaahh, ok, I see what you're saying now. I personally like that idea. My only concern: what about flashback episodes? For 3x08, would Linderman still be italicized? Oh, one more thing: characters who didn't die onscreen. While DL did technically die onscreen, he appeared onscreen after his death, but before his death onscreen. I don't think we should use DL (14) for 1x23 because he didn't die from THAT gunshot wound...--Skullman1392 12:18, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
        • I don't think this is going to work. In Heroes, there is too much uncertainty when it comes to characters deaths. Even the episode in which a character dies is unclear--I think Simone actually died somewhere between 116 and 118. But that's a smaller quibble. And it's hard to say when somebody "appears as dead". Arthur was an odd case--he was presumed dead, but was alive. Kaito appeared alive on DVD though it was after he had died. Illusions show people alive as do dreams and flashbacks. There are just too many odd cases in a nonlinear story like Heroes to make it work. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
          • It sounded like an awesome (not to mention extremely convinient) idea to me, but Ryan makes a good point. If HRG can be brought back from the dead with a little of Clair's blood, can't everyone be? There are tons of exceptions. But what about if we did it strictly for minor characters with absolutely confirmed deaths, or characters we know to have absolutely no purpose in returning? People like Danny Pine, Ted, Charlie, or Zane. If we can list their dates of death on their pages, we should be able to do it on this page, too, shouldn't we?--Kooliki 17:21, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Maya Appearances Error

Someone made a pretty big error in listing Maya for making 14 appearances, when she really made 15. I sorted things out, and realised she was stated to make her eighth appearance in both 'Powerless' and 'The Second Coming'. Nothing else needs to be done, i dont think, but just letting you know... TracyStraussFan 14:54, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Awesome. I'm fairly sure a few of those counts are off, will have to go through them someday. Thankyou! -- 04:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Knox appearances error

I was watching the list and I noticed a mistake in Knox`s appearances. In the episode It`s Coming, he`s listed with his seventh appearance. But in Our Father (3 episodes later) he`s listed again with his 7th appearance.

Main Characters vs. Recurring Characters

I know its not up to the fans but isn't it a little odd that recurring characters sometimes have the same amount or more appearances than some of main characters. Like Monica Dawson has I think 6..mabey more..I can't remember but Sandra Bennet had like 35 appearances....I find it a little odd that people who have that many appearances don't get the appreciation of being a main character. But it's not like I can do anything about it.

Opening montages

We should decide whether or not to include appearances that occur in opening montages (ie. a bunch of recycled footage clumped together at the beginning of episodes). Currently, we include them for Orientation, yet not for Dual. --Radicell 06:00, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

  • We generally don't. I don't think we should for Orientation, either. There are scenes from future episodes in that opening montage from Orientation (including one of Tracy meeting a woman we don't know--does that mean the woman was introduced in Orientation?--and another of Sylar from Hysterical Blindness, which still hasn't aired). Including the opening montage also means that the Baron twins and William Katt are now considered Season Four Guest Stars, which is silly. I think the only reason we included the opening montage was because there was a scene of Joseph Sullivan's funeral where new characters were shown. Really, those montages only happen here and there, usually on the first and/or last episode of a season. They need to be handled individually, on a case-by-case situation. Personally, I think we should include the funeral scene, but not the opening montage. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
    • I definitely agree. They're only reshowing the exact same clip from a previous episode. The actor isn't doing anything more for that episode, so they shouldn't be listed as doing so.--Kooliki 23:30, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Tally

When did we start tallying characters with only 2 appearances? I think it looks akward and isn't neccesary... --Skullman1392 22:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Agree. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
    • I kind of agree with it. I just saw it appear there one day and I thought maybe an administrator did, but I went through the list and added a bunch that they missed. I personally don't like it there, but I do think that in all of the appearance pages, we need to stay consistent. ~~IHHTalk 06:56, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
      • I just think it isn't necessary. If somebody only appeared in two episodes, they're not noteworthy. Appearing in two webisodes, say, is noteworthy. Not to mention how much longer the extra column is than the others... --Skullman1392 02:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
        • I fifth this motion! So can the 2 episodes column be deleted? TracyStraussFan 14:41, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
          • I agree with this, but it does kind of help when changing the tally weekly. Because everything un-bolded is on the tally! ~~IHHTalk 17:38, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Trivia Inconsistencies

The trivia section has some info wrong. I changed it, but just to let y'all know, it stated that 'I Am Become Death' and 'Angels and Monsters' featured all 12 season 3 main characters, yet Noah was absent in IABD and Matt was absent in AaM. TracyStraussFan 14:44, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Division 401

We split into two parts the episode 4x01, "a" and "b", is best for those who divide the episode 401 in 401 and 402 ... Gabrielense 11:31, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Template limit

Have we reached the template limit on this page? Template:AppearancesBrother's Keeper is not showing up properly (it's being linked to, and not transcluded). --Radicell 05:02, 17 November 2009 (EST)