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 evolved humans/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:List of evolved humans/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:List of evolved humans. Archive.jpg

David Berman(Actor) - Brian Davis(Character)

OK...The list should only contain an entry for Brian Davis (the Character), not the actor David Berman who portrayed him. Right? I didn't remove the 'David Berman' row....because there was alot of activity on it, but I think his row (David Berman) should be removed. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2007 (EST)

The name "David Berman" actually appears on the list. --Ted C 17:33, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Missed that one....that has got to be a typo/error. But if it's on the list, it should remain. Should me make any notation on David Berman pointing to the Brian Davis row stating that this is most-likely an error? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2007 (EST)
I'm guessing it's probably less an error and more an easter egg. Amid Halebi is on there, too, and it's unlikely they'd reuse his character since they've basically made him into Ted.--Hardvice (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2007 (EST)
It's already noted here. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Should we make a link from the evolved human list row to the triva elements so that others will catch this? I sure missed it. Just a thought. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Good call!--Hardvice (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)
I found a high-def screen-cap on Brian Davis from another Heroes website, that shows specific address details, and also lists his powers as "Psychic Powers" and "Drug Induced Hallucination". I would like to add this photo to the other gallery photos on Brian's page, but wasn't sure of the procedure of doing so, since this is a screen-cap pic that is sited via photobucket. Can we cross-link, or do we have to upload it to our wiki to be able to show it; and if so, is it compatible with the rules of screen-cap pics? (asking before doing anything because I'm just not clear.) --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Already uploaded. Add it as needed. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Ryan, where can I find the image that you uploaded of the photobucket screencap of the Brian Davis entry above? I wanted to add that screen-cap into the pics on the Journal page, but didn't want to use the photobucket url link. Is there an easy way (that I am missing) to find and locate images in our image archive?--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Duh, I just found it on the page where you put it....Duh...anyway, I still wonder if there is an easy way to browse or look through our images library to see find what things are in there??? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2007 (EST)
There's no easy way to browse, especially browsing old versions of a pic. Check out Special:Newimages, a gallery of new images. If you're looking for an old pic, it's a beast, but the gallery feature is quite nice. Also, try searching Special:Imagelist -- it's not a gallery, and it doesn't work if the file name is not very descriptive, but it's a good starting point. After that, I'd suggest searching some of the image categories. And finally, if you still need help, there's a few of us that are pretty well-aware of what images there are, just because of the sheer amount of time spent categorizing, filing, and uploading the pics -- if you need help, just ask. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2007 (EST)
If it's a screencap and you know the episode, though, you can use the Episode image category to browse them. That's what I do. They're not sorted except by filename, but there's usually only about 50 caps per episode, so it's not too hard to find what you're looking for.--Hardvice (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Sanjong/Sanjonp Iher

I didn't make a notation of this in the list when I updated it earlier today to take into consideration the addition info given on some of the people from Chandra's enhanced Map. However, I wanted to mention it here.

Just like the list denotes the different spellings between Pan-Green and Pam-Green between the Computer List and the Map, likewise, Iher's first name is spelled Sanjong on the list and most references, but as Sanjonp on the map.

Something to consider, I don't care either way, but it is a notable difference. HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2007 (EST)

  • Probably best for a note on Sanjog Iyer, since the interactive map isn't really a canon source.--Hardvice (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (EST)


I think we're making a big leap calling Shanti Suresh an evolved human. Her father said she had a "genetic anomaly" that started him on his research, but that doesn't mean she had whatever mutation results in superhuman powers. She may have had a well-known genetic disorder that lead to her death. We definitely don't know enough about her to list her as an evolved human. --Ted C 15:55, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Inclusion of Shanti doesn't cause any harm at this point.
We have more info on her specific to a 'genetic anomoly' that most people on the computer list.
Chandra himself quoted her as having a 1) 'genetic anomoly' and 2) another reference says she was 'special' and 3) Chandra goes as far as saying "My hope is that no one will suffer as she did.", which goes about as close to saying she had some type of power that brought about her death, without specifically saying what it was. If she didn't have a true power, and her death was simply inert, then none of those 3 points would be worth noting.
At least by including her in the list with the power listed as 'genetic anomoly' it is recorded. If the show ever returns to expand on her past, and theres a good chance it will with the continued influence of Chandra, Mohinder, and Sanjong, this entry isn't without merit.--HiroDynoSlayer
However, it's completely unsupported at this time. We have to treat as canon only what's aired, and to date, all we know is that she had a "genetic anomaly". That could be Down's syndrome for all we know. Including Shanti on a list of evolved humans, when we define "evolved humans" as those with superpowers, is pure speculation.--Hardvice (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2007 (EST)
"Genetic anomaly" is not a power, nor is being "special". So far, there is no evidence that Shanti was an evolved human. So far, all we know is that she had some kind of genetic mutation or abnormality that was linked to her death. As I said, it could have been a well-known genetic disorder. Her condition was important because it was the motivation for Chandra's genetic research, but there is no indication that it was related to the genetic condition that creates superpowers. --Ted C 16:18, 24 January 2007 (EST)
It's not pure speculation....the show's premise is that folks on it with 'genetic anomolies' have isn't a show about gentic anomolied Down's syndrome people.
Name any example from the show where other people are identified with 'genetic anomolies' of any kind that isn't related to a power.
Shanti's power is simple not-yet stated, like many other folks on the lists, journals, map, etc.
Take it out if you want to be adamant about it, but there is enough reasonable evidence given for her inclusion. -- HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Shanti has not exhibited powers and is not an evolved human, though she did have a genetic anomoly. Micah was not considered an EH until after he exhibited his powers. Claire would not have been an evolved human before she exhibited her powers either. If we put Shanti on the list, we may as well speculate that Monty and Simon Petrelli belong on the list because they're the sons and nephews of evolved humans. It's all speculation. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2007 (EST)
The possibility that Shanti was an evolved human is noted on the appropriate character page. That's all the evidence warrants at this time. --Ted C 16:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)
There's a difference between something being "obvious" and something being "confirmed". We opt for the latter. For example, Eden was obviously shady, but it wasn't confirmed that she was a plant until she was seen talking to Mr. Bennet. Yes, Shanti probably has powers. Everything that's been said about her indicates that it's quite likely that she had powers. But it is in no way confirmed that she had powers, and thus she doesn't belong.--Hardvice (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2007 (EST)
OK....I'll agree on Shanti, but with the criteria you guys are giving which is slanted at the 'confirmed' not 'probability...shouldn't Nikki be removed and only Jessica remain? Only Jessica has exhibited confirmed powers, right? (Or at least remove the double rows for each, and concatonate them into Nikki/Jessica as one row?) -- HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2007 (EST)
I've been harping on that very point for two days. --Ted C 16:43, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Niki's on the list. Whether that's a failing of the list or not, it's enough to qualify everyone else.--Hardvice (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Misreading problem on my part. In any case, Niki/Jessica is a single evolved human, despite having two personalities that don't have equal access to the power. The should arguably be on the same line, though. --Ted C 16:46, 24 January 2007 (EST)
The only reason I'd lean towards keeping them separate is that we do have separate sources for including them. Niki's on the list, but has no confirmed powers. Jessica's not on the list, but has confirmed powers. If we can note that clearly, then they should be combined. Otherwise, they should be left separate.--Hardvice (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Good point, combined would be more clear. HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Combination attempted. --Ted C 16:57, 24 January 2007 (EST)


I went ahead and changed Niki's power to "Unknown" since we've seen no confirmed instances of her using enhanced strength.--Hardvice (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I struggled with that one. I completely agree with you - I just decided to go ahead with what's already listed on her page. Thanks for the change. ... I thought about making her power "Alter Ego", just to see if I could get you riled up. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2007 (EST)
You know me all too well.--Hardvice (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2007 (EST)
Moot point, now, I guess, eh? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Sorry fellas, but Niki shown Super strength, like breaking doors.
This discussion took place last year. --Ice Vision (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Distinguish Between Show, Map, and List

I think we need to somehow distinguish between names on this list. It looks odd to have 23 names in the category, and then a million and one names on this table. I suggest we color code the names in a very basic way. Perhaps black for those that are in the episodes/GNs (Charlie, Claire, David Berman, etc.), green for those names that come from the list (Felipe, Abu, etc.), and blue for those that come from NBC's map (Byron, Penkala, etc.) A person not familiar with the list, or especially with the 360 map, can be very confused coming to this page. "Who the heck is Felipe?" "What is a temptress?" (especially since there's no article on them, and no other easily attainable information). Any thoughts? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2007 (EST)

  • Something is defiantly needed, the colors could work, but what about the links and those who are from multiple places? Another thing that could be added is a source column. --Level 14:33, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Hopefully the new 'source' column I added today, along with the legend that denotes where (List, Map, Journal, Episode, G.N., etc...) the info is derived from, will be sufficient. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Pam/Pan Green

On the list Pam Green is not marked as Deceased, on the Map Pan Green is. Should we show that her death is non cannon? I had (Deceased?) but it was removed. -Level 17:46, 24 January 2007 (EST)

  • Tough call. We know the list seen on the show has errors (see David Berman), and we know that a lot of the things on the NBC website are buggy or simply incorrect (sticky placement). I think leave it as it is in the show (not dead yet) until we see otherwise, unless you wish to tag it with an * or something. --Orne 09:44, 25 January 2007 (EST)
    • Incidentally, I can't seem to find a good screenshot where it actually says "Pam"... it could be that we anglocized the name here on HeroesWiki. The one we have that was used as the source for the list clips the name in half, so it could be a n or m. --Orne 11:13, 25 January 2007 (EST)
      • Image:The_List2.jpg compare the last letter in "Pam" to the last letter in "Green" and others like "Ethan Kim", you may need to zoom in but they are different. -Level 11:37, 25 January 2007 (EST)
    • I still don't think David Berman and Amid Halebi are errors. It seems odd that they'd honor such a small-part actor in such a way, but maybe he's good friends with somebody on the production. And even if it is in error, we've pretty consistently gone with erroneous broadcast info as canon (the LVPD, U of Chennai instead of U of Madras, etc.) I'd definitely consider the list as broadcast as canon, and the map as non-canon, and right now Pam's article does that: it notes "Pan" as a misspelling and her death as unconfirmed.--Hardvice (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Pam Green and Pan Green are confirmed to be the same person but her death is still unconfirmed. -Level 15:22, 22 February 2007 (EST)

    • FYI on Chandra's Map. Pam green.jpg --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2007 (EST)
      • Read above, the map is non-canon. And on the list her name is not red. -Level 15:52, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Valcek... Valcan

  • Something is telling me that this is another map slip up. Both are Michelle Val___'s, and the Valcan has no information... any thoughts? --Riddler 14:07, 25 January 2007 (EST)
    • AHAHA, I didn't realize you JUST did that.


I noticed "Clairvoyance" leads to info on Precognition. However, considering the two powers are given a different name and multiple heroes already seem to possess some form of Precognition, it stands to reason that Clairvoyance isn't Precognition, but is instead a different (though, perhaps, similar) power. Rather than a precognitive ability, Clairvoyance probably refers to remote viewing -- seeing far-away places or events at the time they're happening, as opposed to future/past events.

  • Good point. We should change that.--Hardvice (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, I put that link in there way before the interactive map ever came out. It's pretty obvious that now, the 2 powers are somehow different and shouldn't be linked together. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Unnamed 3 (male)

Where is the information about "Unnamed 3 (male)" coming from? (Yes, I know it's from the journal - I didn't see anything on that page about a male with regenerative powers. Do we have a screencap, or a link or something?) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2007 (EST)

  • Ryan, I have trying to track the source for this one down. I'm expecting it to come from a high-def capture, and it is from episode 1x7. It is probably gathered from a high-def capture of the same journal page picture of the Connecticutt woman. Notice that the CT Woman's info is listed on the right-hand page, but if you zoom in the conclusion of the person from the left-hand page, you can make out even without high-def, that it says, "potential power Tissue Regeneration" in the last line. Without hi-def, at least with my eyes, the top line is too blurring; but it very well may contain a 'he/him' personal pronoun that is causing the identity to be derived as male. I'll keep looking to see if there is a clearer screen-cap, or source for this guy. At this point, the CT Woman's page is the only source-point. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2007 (EST)
  • I just noticed the same left-hand page is shown a little clearer on the Botswana woman's pic too. Evidently the pages were being thumbed through fairly fast, and the left-hand page had not been convered up yet as the right-hand pages switched. Both left-hand pages look identical. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2007 (EST)
I just found a more clear view of the left-hand page, where you can make-out both the top and bottom lines: *The full page states:
  • "intentions to get data from him"
  • "Potential Power Tissue Regeneration" --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2007 (EST)

More New Unnameds (from HD Screen Caps)

I found this thread which has more entries from Chandra's book. It includes additional people we do not have catalogued yet:

  • Unnamed #6, Male, Chilpancingo, Mexico, North America - Powers: Transportation
  • Unnamed #7, Someone from Sweden, (we need to look for more info on) but the Hi-Def pic was removed due to bandwidth
  • Unnamed #8, Female, Madison, CA, North America - Powers: Telepathy

Could we reference those screen-cap images?

Should we start a section of 'unconfirmed, speculative, or incomplete data' for tidbits like this that come along, that we should keep track of, and be clues to people that may pan-out in the future, but at present, isn't enough data to fully include on the main list? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, I'll get to work on these after lunch. Great finds! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2007 (EST)
  • I added updates and pics of two of the three to the Journal page, and will make references on this page with the other 'unnameds'. I am also going to try and rundown the lost screen cap of the Sweden guy and get it listed as well. I went ahead, as well, and updated in the journal, each persons temporary 'unnamed #2' name as we can be consistent with this list, and we can uniquely identify each of the unnames until their true names turn up. It might be a good thing to create a character page for each of them as well. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2007 (EST)
In digging to find the screenshot from the Journal page that give the info on the Sweden 'unnamed #7' guy, I found another 'unnamed' that we have not yet referenced.
  • Unnamed #9, Male, Barstow, CA.
FBI Agent Elisa Thayer mentions him to Audrey in 1x2 as an early Sylar kill in the FBI investigation, and states, "Sylar, last word of a dying man". I cross-ref'd goggle, the transcripts page, and most of the main Heroes websites, and it appears that we now have all of the 'revealed' evolved humans identified so far. (outside of someone getting there hands on a clear HD picture of the Map, and can bring out any more names that are presently unreadable.) --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Great work — it's looking really nice. Isn't it fun to go through the minutae of the show - it's worth it when you make the Barstow connection ... I would advise against making pages for each of the unnamed people - not only would it be weird to have an article called "Unnamed #3", but we just don't know enough about them. I already feel kind of weird having them on the evolved humans list; I think they're better off as just trivia. But that's okay, I just wouldn't give them their own pages. Good work, Sherlock! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2007 (EST)
  • Maybe all of the 'Unnameds' can band together and form their own 'Unnamed Page', kinda like 'the Island of Forgotten Toys'from the Rudolph Christmas Special.
I'm sure that most of them (especially the dead ones) will never be of any use....but the ones that are still alive might pop-up in the future, then we will have a connection (and they finally get that long awaited name!). Kinda like Sparrow Redhouse from New Mexico; with a name like that, this character is bound to be written into a real person, but presently has less information about him/her than we have on Unnamed #2. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Do we know he's male? Thayer's exact quote is "the last words of a dying victim", not "the last words of a dying man".--Hardvice (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2007 (EST)


Anytime there is a high-likelihood because of the information available, even if it isn't yet shown or confirmed, I think adding (Potentially) to a suspected power might be good for this list. (since 'powers' is its emphasis)

Since some of the folks have been given parenthetical (potentially) notes because of their 'yet-to-be-shown' status, should we also consider adding the "Freezing (potentially)" to the power of James Walker?

He is the only other person that comes to mind at this stage of the shows development.

Since he is the only person to-date to potentially be associated with this power, it might should be noted. Yes, one could argue that Sylar or Molly 'froze' him, but they haven't exhibited a freeze power, and since Sylar took James' brain, it is most 'potentially' that James had the 'freeze' power and that is why Sylar scalped him.

By putting the Freeze (potentially) suffix on him, it would be more for documentative purposes, and not a definate. Just a thought. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2007 (EST)

It's a great thought, but read this interview first. The writers revealed that it was Sylar who froze the FBI agent.

Some will want to put this in as another one of Sylar's gained powers. But it's not canon, so we should hold off until we learn more. (I get the sense that we're going to learn more about Molly and more about that freezing power later.) For now, I'll put it in the appropriate notes. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2007 (EST)

  • Thanks for the interview link on 'Freeze'. Speaking of Molly, I realize she has not been confirmed with a power, but I would speculate that if she returns, and is found with a power, it will be a power like shadow-cat, or phasing. Notice in the seen where they are first found, and the dad is frozen and the mom is staked, that Molly is hiding behind the closet door...but a vase-covered table is blocking the door from the outside. Yes, the parent's could have hid her, then put the table infront of the door, OR---she simple phased into the closet to hide. Sylar wants here for some specific reason...just my hunch. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Interactive list

Is it possible to make an interactive version of this? So that you can sort by name, actor/actress, or power? Anomy 23:13, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, that'd be cool, wouldn't it. I don't know if a wiki has the capability of doing that. You can either ask Admin or wait to see if somebody more knowledgable replies here. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I for one don't know of any way to do it within WikiMarkup or HTML. If we had JavaScript enabled, it could be done, but JavaScript's either on or off for the whole site, and it comes with a whole plethora of associated risks.--Hardvice (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2007 (EST)
  • This could be done in a back-handed way via html, but the overhead of doing it would probably not be worth the results gain. To do it with HTML, what you would have to do, is have two cloned pages for each column you want to sort on, and then create two hotlink column headers (asc & desc) and whenever that specific column link is selected, load that page up, with that sort order. Unfortuantely, that creates a ton of overhead, because every page update and maintenance would have to be done to each cloned page. Alot of work for not much gain via HTML. At least search is sufficient, and the page itself isn't very large. We could simplify the page by pulling the folks who do not have confirmed powers out into their own linked list; but for now with the size it is, I would suggest just leaving it as it is. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Thirty Six Individuals.

Did anyone else note this like I did? First thing that came to mind was... we have too many people. Maybe I took it the wrong way, but Mohinder said his father had a list of 36 people. We've seen most of this list.... 24 names to be exact. Our list has 50 names (51 if you count Valcek/Valcan), plus a bunch of unnamed's. Now, if these others have been confirmed by Chandra with his map, why weren't they updated on the list? Why would there be only 36 names?--Riddler 00:26, 30 January 2007 (EST)

It seems likely at this point that the list is not a complete list of people with powers. Perhaps it was Chandra's starting point. The lack of many people outside of the US also seems to suggest that his list may in fact be somewhat US-centric (perhaps most of the human genome project info was US-based). The list of evolved humans consists of people both on and not on Chandra's list. (Admin 00:36, 30 January 2007 (EST))
    • What I find confusing with that is, if Chandra used it only as a starting point, shouldn't it be bigger and more broad? And if it were, wouldn't Mohinder know of it? This raises another question, if Chandra DIDN'T know of the extra people... how come HRG DID? Lastly... maybe the unnamed's are characters we already know names of?--Riddler 00:38, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • That's certainly a possibility, though most of the names are in the U.S. and most of the unknowns aren't. I get the impression from the dates on the journal that the unknowns are people he was investigating before he cracked the code ... the hard way (tracking down news reports, local legends, and the like) and that some of them probably didn't pan out.--Hardvice (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • Actually we have 34 of the names on the list and three others directly mentioned as being on it. -Level 01:36, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I believe it is a good-thing that we have a list that is greater than 36. Why?
Because our list is being very careful to document all known cases of 'evolved humans' as they are revealed from the various sources (which is great for reference and future examination), but it also avoids making assumptions of people based on info we do not yet have decisively revealed. Eventually, there is a high likelihood that our 9 'unnameds' will be mated with their 'real-name' counterpart on the list, but presently we do not know to whom they belong yet. Likewise, because of spelling inconsistencies and character/actor inconsistencies, there is much probability that many others will eventually be combined into the same single entry.
However, at present, our list has more because it has to, if it wants to be truly accurate based on the limited information we have received so far. That's why Mohinder said 36, and we have and should have 50+. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • I agree completely. The list and this article are two separate articles for a reason. The first document the list as seen on the show, which we know is restricted to 36 people. The second lists all known evolved humans, which isn't necessarily.--Hardvice (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Future Hiro

Is there a reason Hiro and future Hiro appear as two separate entries?--E rowe 17:53, 2 February 2007 (EST)

It's kind of arbitrary, and doesn't need to stay that way. When I started the page I had them together I believe. I can only assume why the change was made since I don't want to speak for somebody else, but the thinking is that Future Hiro might have developed a slightly differernt (read: more advanced) power than Present Hiro. FH was able to communicate with Peter during "hang time", whereas PH has never been able to bring somebody along his fantastic voyage. Again, arbitrary. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2007 (EST)
My feeling is that every major character goes through developments in any good storyline. One of those ways in Heroes is in their honing of powers. But all of the main Heroes do that, not just Hiro. Heck, by now there are probably already half a dozen Peter Petrelli's over the course of season one--aimless Peter, flying Peter, healing Peter, Peter the dreamer, Peter the precog, invisible Peter, telepathic Peter, and oh yeah future Peter (complete with scar).--E rowe 18:45, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Hey, I'm right there with you, bud. If you want, go ahead and put FH and PH on the same line. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Also remember that if we do strictly separate Hiros, then we really should technically also add 'Past Hiro', the one 'regular Hiro' called and talked to on the Phone in Japan when he went back 6 months and was trying to reach Ando....Having a 'Past Hiro' would be too excessive...but time-travel creates these weird para-doxes....or para-hiros. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 20:37, 02 February 2005 (EST)

Eden McCain

Eden wasn't killed by Sylar, folks. She killed herself so Sylar wouldn't get her abilities.

  • (Please sign your posts.) Suicide, under duress by Sylar as it was in the face of immediate impending murder, is still murder. Sylar gets the credit, otherwise Eden wouldn't have committed suicide. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2007 (EST)
    • Right, she wasn't killed by him, but he is still her victim. Sylar's decoy victim presents a similar situation -- Audrey did the killing, but it's all Sylar's fault. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2007 (EST)
    • You know, I've never liked that it said "Deceased--Sylar". It just didn't make sense to me, and it is misleading when put on Eden's row. I changed it to just "Deceased" with a link to Sylar's victims. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)
      • Ryan, I think that is a good decision. When I first introduced the exapanded columns, and added the status column, it was in consideration for the journal, map, etc...which were denoting the 'deceased' status of many folks. I only listed Sylar specifically, because any death via Sylar, is potentially more germane and important to the storyline, than a normal non-Sylar related death. I like your idea of linking "Sylar's Kills" to his victim's page. That will be a good precidence in the future, if we ever find another serial killer joining the cast. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2007 (EST)
        • Yeah, I think it's important to note Sylar's involvement, but a link works just as well. And if Jessica ever kills an evolved human, we can note "Deceased". :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Listing acquired powers

As always, someone wants to list every obtained power of Sylar. If this is the case, can we please standardize something site-wide that states if we do all of Sylar's obtained abilities, then Peter's must be listed as well. Bob

  • I agree, we don't need to list all their powers on this page. The table will look really funny and distorted when you have multiple powers listed. And as Peter and Sylar expand their collections, not only will this be a beast to maintain, it will look really silly. That's what the link to empathic mimicry is there for: to give a full account of each power. I will, however, add a link to power theft for Sylar, for the same reason. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2007 (EST)
    • Totally agree. This article is about people, not their powers. Listing their original abilities is sufficient.--Hardvice (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)
      • Should we add a note on this page for Sylar/Peter to tell new-comers that their expanded list of absorbed powers can be seen on the Powers page? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2005 (EST)

James Walker (confirmed Freeze Power)

OK Guys, help me out finding something. In my made rush to surf the Hero websites last night after the AWESOME 'unexpected' episode, I ran across an interview with one of the writers, where they confirmed one of Sylar's powers was 'freezing' that he had gained from James Walker. I am trying to re-find that confirmation, so we can add Freeze to the list for Walker, and in a new page I am getting ready to work up focusing on just Peter and Sylar and their 'gained' powers. Can anyone else remember which writer and where this source info came from? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2007 (EST)

  • Apparently, it is from here that confirmed Sylar did it. I don't know about the "gained from Walker" part, but Walker was confirmed to be on the list from when Mohinder was trying to contact the FBI (the whole sent the info to Quantico thing). --Orne 17:12, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Why Not Include the Genesis Files as Source Material

The purpose of the Source Column, is to show where info is contributed from. Why shouldn't Chandra's files be an additional citeable source? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)

  • I removed it because I didn't think Davis's name came from the Genesis Files. (My mistake: see the discussion there.) Regardless, I don't think we need to list every source for every person, just the primary one. The most compelling evidence for Brian Davis being an evolved human is that he used telekinesis in Six Months Ago. I don't think we need to have more than that. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)
    • I see the point in not needing to have more than 1 source. However, by including the Genesis Files, as a legend item, it will perhaps remind us (or others) in the future that it is another source of information that the other more primary sources might not list. IMO, the folders shouldn't be any less of a credible source than the just happens that we have more unique journal info now. Aside from Brian Davis, don't you think we should be able to cite Chandra's Folders as a source for information? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)
      • No, I'm not saying that the files are a less-credible source, or shouldn't be listed at all. What I am saying is that there's no need to list every source for somebody being an evolved human, just the most illustrative example. For instance, Charlie is on the list, but that's not her source--instead we use the most compelling source, which is the episode in which she demonstrates her powers. If there were anybody listed in the Genesis Files that we never met and never saw on the list, then yes, we would include that as a source. I just don't see the need to put the GF as the source for knowing Brian Davis was an evolved human--otherwise, for consistency, we would put the list as a source for everybody on the list, or even every episode in which somebody demonstrates their powers. I think just one is enough, personally. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)
        • Go and re-read the other link where we are talking about the Genesis files, in the GF talk page. After finding the video, it is conclusive that the file Sylar pulls the postit from is the source of telling Brian Davis has TK. This happens before Sylar ever meats Brian Davis. I agree that BD didn't manifest the power until later, but the Folder is where we learn about BD having TK. So I agree with you that the power manifestation should be the source listing, if it is clear and undisputable; I just want to document however, that we can now clearly know the folder of the BD postit is conclusively BD's folder entry; because Sylar quotes from the folder directly, and not the postit (which is crumbled up in his other hand). I'll try to spend some time going back over the older videos of the folders, and make sure there aren't any people listed in them that we have no other source-documentation for that may have fallen through the cracks. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Asterick infinite

OK, Why revert back to the multi-asterick system? Right now we are at 4 two months, we could be at 8 or 9 we really want to continue using a footnoting system like this? Fred Brown********* and Marg Brown********** to a datagrid list that is already pretty full and short on space to begin with? Why not allow it to be numerically footnoted as I switched them earlier, so you have footnotes without massive-potential to waste alot of space? If things continued to grow, in a year from now, it would be much cleaner and neater to see:

  • John Doe (*18) instead of John Doe******************
  • Jane Doe (*19) instead of Jane Doe*******************

--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2007 (EST)

    • I was thinking the same thing when I got to 5 asterisks. I don't know if we'll add any more notes (hopefully we'll actually take some off when more is revealed), but you're right--it's getting a bit confusing. I didn't like the parenthetical note because it seemed like it was part of the name. I think if we just change it to a superscript, it should be fine. I'll take care of it now. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2007 (EST)
      • Just use something like [5] instead of worrying about asterisks. (Admin 12:52, 26 February 2007 (EST))
        • Already done. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2007 (EST)
          • The Superscripts look great. I was wanting to do that to begin with, and for some reason just forgot that you can use html markup and it has superscript tags with it. That's how the 'real world' does footnoting anyway, and it makes it look real clean and understandable. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (EST)