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:Unknown female

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Didn't we just delete this? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

  • I don't know, but this character is the only one of the twelve founders left that is unidentified (and that's only because Matt can't write). She's worthy of her own article even though she's unnamed.--Shoreline83 20:54, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • lets leave her because she 's a member of the group of twelve and she may appear in future espisodes --Zoga78 21:01, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • Or, let's delete her, put her information on group of twelve, and if she appears in any future episodes (in a flashback? in a time traveling sequence? as a corpse?), then let's reinstate her. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • I think we should keep this article. We have other articles that are just based on notes without a name (i.e. Journal female 5), so why not keep this as well? --Pinkkeith 16:34, 12 December 2007 (EST)
    • I don't think it has to do with whether or not the woman has a name. It has to do with the content. There isn't anything useful on this page, but journal female 5 does have worthy information. A home is named, a potential power is named, etc.--Ice Vision 16:39, 12 December 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (EST)
    • Actually, as a personal request, I'd like to wait until about March 15. I'm sorry I have to be vague, but I linked to it somewhere I can't say, and I think it would benefit us all if we just wait another two weeks or so. Yes, I know, I'm being very mysterious...If we decide to delete it, that's fine, I just ask for about two weeks. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (EST)


If we were ever to get her name (shouldn't be too hard), would she get a page then? As far as I can see Ms. Ammawhatchamacallit is equal in non-theoretical information as Carlos Mendez, so they should either both get a page or not (unless the name is enough for a page, which it hasn't been in the past).--Tim Thomason 21:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

  • I agree, if the S. Ammakinesis gets a name, then Carlos and she should either both get pages or both be deleted. If there's a name in this case, I personally think it'd be fine to have a page, though I waffle on my opinion. Let's get a name before we have that discussion. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)
    • Most people seemed to agree it was Suzanne Ammaw, and at the very least we could just call her Suzanne and leave it at that. --Piemanmoo 02:08, 1 December 2007 (EST)
      • The note as it appeared on Matt's version of the photo of the group of twelve was blurry. So unfortunately it doesn't matter what "most people" seem to think if the note isn't clear enough then calling her Suzanne would be too speculative. The best solution is to try to get confirmation from someone on the writing staff (which is hard since they're on strike) or perhaps even Greg Grunberg got a good enough look at the photo to say for certain who's name was on the Post-It. (Admin 02:12, 1 December 2007 (EST))
      • I'm reading that as "Suzanne Amman" or possibly "Samantha Amman". --Ted C 16:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)
  • is impotant is one of the group of twelve and all of them are important--Sylar007 (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2007 (EST)
    • I don't think she's unimportant. I just don't think there's enough information about her to warrant a page. The importance of her character can be emphasized on the Company's founders. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (EST)
  • i have heard that she will appear in the next season along with the other unintroduced characters , her last name looks like Amman to me --Zoga78 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
    • Where did you hear about this? It would make a good addition to Spoiler:Upcoming episodes if you can get a source. The writing's not too clear, so we're playing "better safe than sorry" until we get other info. If you can find a spoiler source that has her name, that might be enough, though.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)
  • if you look in wikipedia under the company (heroes) it states that Tim Kring said ""we will be seeing more of the five as yet unknown characters, and that they will be played by the same actors featured in the photo." if wikipedia is right her name is really Suzanne Ammaw --Zoga78 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Mrs. Ammaw

  • If that is her last name, which I think it is right? Could we just call the page Mrs. Ammaw? Jason Garrick 23:17, 22 December 2007 (EST)
    • It looks more like "Amman" to me, which is a much more probable and reasonable name than "Ammaw". But it's possible that the name could be either--it's too hard to tell with such bad handwriting. See here for previous discussions about the name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2007 (EST)

consensus check

looks like we might need a vote here.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (EST)

--Jason Garrick 15:32, 29 December 2007 (EST)

  1. Didn't one of the Interviews answer this? Therequiembellishere 20:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)
  2. -- User:ArgentinaSeeHeroes


  1. --Ice Vision (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2007 (EST) (was deleted a while ago, and should remain gone)
  2. --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 14:13, 27 December 2007 (EST)
  3. Everything here can be said on the Company's founders. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (EST)
  4. I agree. Not only do Paula and Harry have the pleasure of having a legible name, they are also on the list, so they can stay. This person, can be summed up in a bullet. -- Lulu .:talk:. 16:34, 27 December 2007 (EST)
  5. --MiamiVolts (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)
  6. --Hardvice (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)
  7. --Dunno why we need another consensus when we already trashed this page.Bob (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2007 (EST)
  • Why is this still around!? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I had asked for it to be kept for two weeks, and that time has long since expired. You're, right, it's ready to go now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)