Talk:Charmed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
To-do list for Charmed: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Expand sections on episodes and broadcasters to include short summary of main articles
  • See featured article nomination for other ideas
Priority 1 (top)

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Charmed recent changes

Click here for a list of recent changes made to Charmed articles (Click here to view a list of these articles)

[edit] 2006 July discussions

[edit] Character infos: Not short and not character descriptions

It's been a returning problem since the character descriptions appeared on the main page that they keep growing and growing, containing information that either are episode specific, too minute (Phoebe's supposed affair with the guy in episode #1), have been already mentioned previously (e.g. all of the sisters' powers), or otherwise do not belong in this article (e.g. the massive spoilers detailing how all the characters ended up).

On the contrary, I think that the short descriptions are not really what they should be: a short description of the _character_. Not what they did, not what happened in their lives, not when they were born, but only one sentence about who they are and then a few sentences about their purpose in the show, why they are there, what their function is, and what makes them important. I believe that this is what is necessary for someone who never heard of the programme to get a general overview of the show, not life details.

Generally, we have to make the article understandable for people who do not know about the show. That is a tendency I've started to apply to the premise section, as it e.g. contained the word Whitelighter with no word about what that is. I reckon that such a method of editing via viewing the text from the perspective of an outsider should be applied to the rest of the article if there is truly an effort to make this something resembling a featured article. AdamDobay 18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I started rewriting in a format I find preferable. I hope you find it more comprehensive and nonfan-friendly than the previous ones. AdamDobay 23:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree people put too much information in them, such as when editors persistently try to list all of Cole's powers shown on screen... in all of his forms. Or when they want to put powers for "Hindu Leo", "Nexus Leo", "Hindu Piper", "Earth Goddess Piper"... whatever. Keep everything simple, lots of links to other Charmed articles for simplicity, eg: Species: Whitelighter. Try to keep family down to parents, siblings and children maybe? Persistent reversions of fandalism? Zythe 09:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nearer the top of the page Chris Perry is mentioned, then below Chris Halliwell is mentioned. It isn't clear that this is the same Chris. Assuming it is (I'm not an expert) it might be better to put his pseudonym as the category title and then explain that he was a mysterious whitelighter form the future later revealed to be their future son. Doing this way and only revealing more information as readers look would reduce the spoiler factor for those watching reruns who dont yet know all the details.

[edit] Dumain Article

Someone edited the Magic School (Charmed) article with the implication they'd like someone to create an article for Dumain. I personally feel there doesn't need to be one, he wasn't in that many episodes, but I think other people might disagree. Should someone create the article or just remove the red link? Zythe 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor demon. He's not really important. AdamDobay 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
He's in the List of Charmed evil beings; redirect his page there. —Mira 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just followed my own advice; redirect created. —Mira 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization?

There is a question as to whether articles such as The Hollow (Charmed) and The Nexus (Charmed) should include the word "The" in their titles. The appropriate policy is here. Basically, if "the" would be capitalized in normal writing, then it should be in the title. If it isn't normally capitalized, then it shouldn't be in the title. —Mira 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

One case is clear-cut, the other is not. Halliwell Manor is built on _a_ spiritual nexus. So that should go under Nexus (Charmed). As for the Hollow, I'm not sure. It's a one-of-a-kind item, and it's always referred to as The Hollow, but it may not be the case of a capitalized the. AdamDobay 22:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the nexus article has been moved back to Nexus (Charmed). —Mira 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there some kind of source (preferably official) where one could look this up? —Mira 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telekinetic orbing & Orb (Charmed)

These pages duplicate each other in large part, and I think they should be merged. I'm not completely certain which one should be kept, though. Thoughts? —Mira 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Orbing is the larger category, so I think both should be deleted and merged under Orbing (Charmed). "Orb" in itself is never used in the series, it's never a noun. AdamDobay 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we could expand on the article of Orbing altogether, and have the telekinetic orbing as a sub section within. --Joe Christl 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote

  • Support Merge - Zythe 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Orb (Charmed); seems more appropriate a title than "Orbing". ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - --Joe Christl 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is probably obvious, but I'll go ahead and support a merge. —'Mira 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a little note, continue to vote, but I enhanced the Orb (Charmed) article anyway, since it needed the information on all the variants of orbing. It can be further improved by other editors. Should there be a swing in opinion, feel free to delete the section on telekinetic orbing.Zythe 23:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and redirect it then, should five people come along and oppose, may they revert my edits.Zythe 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture at the top of the page

What was wrong with the old picture? Actually I'd like to find one that had all four girls in one shot. --Joe Christl 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think abut it we should leave the original one there. We already have a face shot of each trio, complete with names left-to-right. Do we need two of the second cast? --Joe Christl 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent changes, because the top image was unsourced, and the lower one was just unecessary. —Mira 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that as per most television show pages, the picture at the top should be the logo of the series (preferably that nice one from the opening). Then there would be no debate about what picture should be there. AdamDobay 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've capped a couple of images from the opening, of of the logo against the BoS, and one against the circle of candles. If desired, I'll upload them and see which is more popular. It's hard to say which I like better...the BoS scene shows the Triquetra well, but is overly blue. The candles scene has nice colour contrast, but the Triquetra is somewhat faded. I'm not sure if I can do any colour editing to the second one to bring out the Triquetra more. Let me know what you think. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I've uploaded the sample images to my server. Full size #1 260px #1 // Full size #2 260px #2. If any strike your fancies, lemme know. The images will remain on my server for a couple of weeks, in case anyone wants to compare the two after the change is made. (Note, they have been edited slightly to emphasize the Triquetra and lettering) ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 23:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I like the first one better, but they're both pretty good. —Mira 04:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the first one as well, as that is a pure, logo & title picture. AdamDobay 08:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Copy. I'll go ahead and upload that one. Hopefully this will solve our image problem once and for all (though, realistically, I doubt it :) ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks great. I've added a little comment notice, should it help. AdamDobay 18:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Great stuff guys. I really like the new logo.  :) Hopefully things will calm down now. --Joe Christl 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

In the intro for this article, it says: "The show was the last in its generation of supernatural-themed shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Roswell [...]"

How can it be the last in its generation when the show debuted in '98, and "Angel" and "Roswell" didn't start until a year later? It came off of the heels of "Buffy," but preceded "Angel" and "Roswell." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.11.78 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that because it ended at a later date than these other shows, it would be considered the last of that generation. Because it started first doesn't mean anything, just so long as it outlived the others. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who wrote that there, and its meaning is what Huntster has said. It does not matter what year a show started, it's really a generation of shows that ended with Charmed, because now you don't have anything like Charmed (or Buffy or Angel) on television anymore. AdamDobay 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put in a wee bit about the song in the Opening titles, I'm not sure it belongs quite where it is, might be better under trivia or something. - Kohhna 11/1/07

[edit] Final decision on the Piper's third child versus Phoebe's daughter debate

[edit] Situation

As the problem of whether the little girl portrayed at the end of Forever Charmed is Piper's or Phoebe's child has spread throughout Wikipedia's Charmed-related pages, I have collected the strongest arguments and counterarguments that have been brought up during the debate, and why I believe that the result of the debate is that the child is (as per the original version of the aforementioned article sections) Piper's daughter. I would not like to open a debate over this as it already has been debated for weeks before the first conclusion (which, now it seems, didn't prove too useful), but I am open to initiate a vote on whether the theory, as fact, should be put on the pages or not.

Theory: Piper, at the end of the last episode, hands the lunchbox to Phoebe's child, not her own third child.

  • Main Argument #1: When Piper hands the lunchbox to the girl, she says "or to Phoebe's [children]" in the voicover.

Rebuttal from episode: The sentence part "or to Phoebe's" is heard over Piper giving the lunchbox to Chris, with the girl already having received a lunchbox.

Rebuttal from episode: As all three children are seen, together as one, in the scene, the exact moment Piper says "Phoebe's" is irrelevant. She is discussing all three children as whole.

  • Main Argument #2: A third child of Piper's wasn't shown in the 5-second shot of Wyatt and Chris in the future, and does not appear on the photos shown at the end of the episode.

Rebuttal from television standards (direction & editing): The shot depicting Wyatt and Chris is not long enough to introduce a new character at the very end of the final episode.
Rebuttal from television standards (writing & scene purpose): The scene showing Wyatt and Chris serve to clarify their adult relationship as resolved, not to provide information on how many children Piper may or may not have.
Rebuttal from episode: There is a large number of pictures on the wall that are not shown to the viewers.

  • Argument #3: Pre-released scripts named the child 'Melinda', but 'Melinda' was designated in episode 8.09 as Phoebe's daughter.

Rebuttal from names in the family: Melinda is a famous name in the family. There is nothing that indicates that giving the name of one of their ancestors to their children is the right of only one sister.
Rebuttal from the rule of "no set future" in the series: The future in the show changes with every different decision. There is nothing that indicates that Phoebe's daughter will be named Melinda based only on one premonition.
rebuttal from spoiler script The spoiler changed. In the spoiler, Piper does name the child as hers. However, the spoiler was changed in the actual episode, for whatever reason, erasing any concrete evidence.

  • Argument #4: In the vision of 7.10, Wyatt and Chris have no sister, they go to school with Phoebe's daughter.

Rebuttal from the rule of "no set future": see above.

  • Main problem with theory #1: The child shown with Wyatt and Chris is neither of the two children previously shown with Phoebe. Evidence: Compare Image:Charmed_Piper'sDaughter.jpg and Image:Billie,_Ladybug_and_Other.jpg.

Argument against problem: The child shown is Phoebe's third child.
Counterargument from age: When Phoebe's third child reaches school age, Wyatt will already be at least fourteen, which is not his age in the lunchbox scene.

  • Main problem with theory #2: Phoebe is clearly shown as having at least two children. That only one would be sent off by Piper does not make sense without an explicit reason given.

Argument against problem: Phoebe's other child is sick on that day/is already outside/is not there at that precise moment.
Counterargument based on television standards #1: The final scenes depict general scenes from the future, not nitpicked elements from a given day.
Counterargument based on television standards #2: If there were yet another child outside or anywhere else for that matter, it would have to be indicated by the episode, otherwise it is unbased speculation.

  • Main counterarguments summed up:
  1. The last scenes are a general review of the future, not nitpicks.
  2. The last scenes provide a look at the three families structured around three locations.
  3. The lunchbox scene's narration does not fit the argument always brought up to edit the pages.
  4. The third child in the lunchbox scene does not match any of the two children babysat by Billie.
  5. The often quoted premonitions are not the set future.
  6. There's nothing to explain why Piper would send one of Phoebe's two daughters to school from the Manor.

Conclusion: If the child were different from what would generally be expected (ie. Piper's child), the episode, based on the rules of creating a television show, would have to indicate it. However, the episode does not, not even in one half-sentence, indicate that the child is someone different from what would be expected from the setting. There is no strong evidence to support that the child is not Piper's daughter, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support that it is Phoebe's daughter, as seen from the many counterarguments above. On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence to show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the child is Piper's Furthermore, many of the arguments for the Phoebe's daughter theory above are on the verge of grasping at straws, and many were not more than mere speculation based on things not even seen or heard in the series, further challenging the grounds of the theory. In the end, most or all pro-theory arguments have been rebutted, and I see an overwhelming number of arguments against the theory, which clearly tip the balance towards that the little girl is Piper's daughter. Finally, if not doing anything else than applying Occam's razor to the two sides of arguments, it also clearly shifts us towards the original viewpoint, that the child is indeed Piper's daughter.

If you believe that the issue is unresolvable without a vote, please vote on whichever version you prefer. AdamDobay 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Having not seen the episode yet (waiting for the dvd), I find myself leaning toward the daughter being Piper's. This is based on everything I've read and saw, on the 'net and here. I also respect the decisions of AdamDobay, Mira, Zythe, and others that I see coming here working on these articles, and protecting them from vandalism, daily. --Joe Christl 19:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that I've only seen the episode once (during broadcast), I seem to recall that each children section was clearly divided between the sisters. From what I remember, there really was no question that the girl belonged to Piper. I really must find the ep again...somewhere. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey all. Shouldn't we utilize this and the other Talk section as reference points in the main article for any parts that mention the third child? --Joe Christl 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I propose this: Apart from this talk page, let us collect relevant text from the other talk pages this came up on (or, for more clarity, let us incorporate further relevant arguments and counterarguments from other talk pages into the collection above) and create a special archive inside this talk page just to hold this debate (so the links are permanent. AdamDobay 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. :) And we can point to sections that talk about this, with {{reference}} markers.


[edit] Vote

  • Support Piper's Daughter --Joe Christl 19:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Occam's Razor is the best point of all. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To counterpoint anon-67.67 below...no offense, but, err, huh? Most of the children in these scenes were not given names. Besides, the whole bit of her being shown when Phoebe's name is mentioned is moot...it was part of the transition sequence that each sister used. This was a visual sequence, that had a general storyline attached to it. Each segment was clearly divided, each featuring the three children that each sister had. Kinda conclusive, in my books. Or am I just sensing troll? -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support She is Piper's daughter, as far as I'm concerned. And I might I also add, amazing work compiling this, AdamDobay. —Mira 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mira, I was just too irritated by the constant reediting of this in other articles. :) AdamDobay 09:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely Piper's Daughter, simply watching the episode can lead to no other real conclusion, based on what was shown onscreen and applying Occum's Razor. --Maelwys 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposed she is definately Phoebe's daughter. If the child really was Piper's, then why didn't she make a point of saying it was, as he sisters did with their children? her restaraunt was important enough to mention; you would think a daughter would be too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.235.137 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • because each exposition scene was showing each charmed one with three children of their own. Phoebe was pregnant with her third. It would make no sense for Phoebe's daughter to be with her sisters, in this instance. Piper was narrating, not taking role call. --Joe Christl 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You never said you were a tiger, therefore you are a lion. Zythe 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, the intention of the scripts and proved through simple logic, is that she is Piper's daughter. Sorry to all those hoping for a Wyatt and Chris spinoff, or don't want their fanfiction ruined, but that she is. Zythe 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposed Guys, I understand where you are coming from. The idea of Piper having a third child, that special daughter she saw in the future, the one she had been waiting for, would be wonderful. However, regardless of whether a vote will settle this issue or not, we have no concrete evidence.
Step outside your shoes, for one moment, and pretend you weren't as big a Charmed fan as you are now. Look back onto the episode ("Forever Charmed") and, in particular, the "lunchbox" scene. If you weren't as hooked and hadn't watched "Morality Bites" or those five second "I'm going to call her Prudence Melinda"-moments, would have been able to say to yourself, 100%, deep in your heart-of-hearts, that Piper had a daughter?
Both Phoebe and Paige talked about their children and explained their history to us. Piper, additionally, explained the story of her two sons (alongside a photograph of them, and a scene of them bonding). And yet, this daughter was never mentioned, never referenced, never immplied. Even Piper's grand-children don't immply that their mother was "Melinda Halliwell" as one (Matthew) had Wyatt's middle-name and displayed orbing (a third child would not be a whitelighter due to Leo's becoming mortal), whilsts the other (the little grand-daughter) had Chris' power of telekinesis.
I know what you mean about the flashforwards being a general scope of the future, but could you, honestly (and don't try fooling yourself), could you see Piper not mention having another child once (considering children are her life) but still go on out her restaurant and Leo's teaching career?
Furthermore, many people seem to come back to this age-old argument that what the script says goes. Now, if one is to carefully read that script one would see that whilst the young girl is called "Melinda", and the script builds up an idealised family; one will also see that the script was changed. Re-written. Altered. This pretty-much leaves the one you have been reading to become uncannon. For you see, you will observe that the line "our children could take over" was replaced (n the final script) with a shot of only Wyatt and Chris. Before, the writters may have intended to make "Melinda" Piper's and Leo's daughter, but the pure iconography and the immense connotations brought forward by that shot clears tells the audience that "our children" (ie: Piper's and Leo's) only include Wyatt and Chris.
I don't think that a vot could sort out this debate, as the article for this daughter should remain unbiased and open to ever side of the debate as our decision (in this vote) is the not actually going to be the final decision for the Charmed production team.
If Piper had said she would have a daughter, if she would have named her Prudence as she intended (season four), if this girl was someone more included in their lives (instead of her going to school, despite the fact that we alread know that Wyatt and Chris will go to school with their cousin), then I would say "Yes! We're Right! She is her daughter!". However, until now "we're wrong" might seem more fitting.
--Danny DeSio 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring everything else and just looking at the final episode is exactly what I did do when making my vote above. And what I saw were three seperate scenes in three seperate settings, Piper with her children, Phoebe with hers, and Paige with hers. That's the way that makes the most sense (instead of trying to excuse why Phoebe's kid is in Piper's scene). I also asked my wife for her thoughts, without sharing with her the information about the script or anything else, and she said that she just assumed Piper'd had a daughter, based on the way the scene was laid out. All else aside, the simple fact is that the kid was in Piper's "future scene", so logic says that it's Piper's kid. --Maelwys 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Again, call on Occam's Razor to figure this one out. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The use of "threes" occurs throughout the series, so why not here--to the Power of Three--as well? Beyond that, but the flashforward sequence seems designed to answer a number of questions that hadn't yet been resolved, most dating from early in the series. Piper's restaurant and her daughter are part of that. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think you, Danny, are allowing yourself to be biased towards the middle. You are allowing the past references, to supposed futures and alternate timelines (which don't exist), to draw you away from what is clearly the most obvious answer. Would you be voting this way, if this was a non-fantasy show? What if this was a drama on Lifetime? How does the scene play out then? (am i still making sense) --Joe Christl 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
no, but we'll forgive you this time *grin* --Huntster 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Danny but all of your statements are just repetitions of the claims refuted above or elsewhere. For one, all the television-related claims you repeat over and over could be clearly understandable if you had any experience with television or film production, which you seemingly do not. But anyway, it is useless to start the same debate again over unbased claims, just a little game of mind for everyone: let's suppose that she's not Piper's daughter. But the evidence is too strong against the girl being Phoebe's daughter (just check the photos, really, it doesn't take too much intelligence to see that those two girls are not that girl). So then who is she, if not Piper's daughter or Phoebe's daughter? Wyatt's charge (the kid's good, he could start early)? Chris's girlfriend Bianca from episode 6.10? Someone who just dropped by and got a lunchbox (maybe it's Halloween)? The reincarnation of Avatar Gamma (they do look alike now don't they, similar complexion and all)? The foster child of Leo and the Seer who Piper doesn't mention because she hated the other woman? Just think about it. (No wait, I got it, it is Phoebe's daughter, who can shape-shift!) AdamDobay 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


This is a TV show. a tv show is controlled antirely by the producers, writers, directors, etc. All we have to go on, all the vidence we will ever have is in the show, what they have given us to specualte on. and being a TV show, we have no way to do outside research, copare notes on similar events; all we have is what's been shown to us. You can't be bringing clues or outside logic into a tv show that has no ties to reality. I think that it could be either; i mean, just becvause it's the most logical answer that it's Piper's, doesn't mean that it IS Pipers. as far as I'm concerned, we were never told who she was on screen, therefore, we can't know indefinately. Shondrea 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
While this is true to a point, there is a fuzzy line between what can be used and what can't. There is a difference between going out on a limb with assumptions, and making a well-informed and logical decision. This topic certainly falls into the latter category. And yes, facts should be the cornerstone of the 'pedia, but they aren't always staring your in the face...and I feel it is preferable to tie up loose ends. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel very offended that people can just come on here and edit even the things I said. Anonymous user 68.201.5.120 has vandalised all pages concerning Melinda Halliwell altogether 12 times, thus I propose security measures. AdamDobay 11:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know how or at what level we should pursue the security. IS this something that we need to have an Administrator agree to? Or are there options we can take without? --Joe Christl 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have posted Vandalism templates at User_talk:68.201.5.120 and User talk:72.235.172.197 (another similar vandal). And I must say I am getting tired. (An off-topic question: I cannot find the result of the debate over whether Wikipedia should be registration-only, can anyone point me to why to, despite most of my and I guess others' energy spent here having to be continuously devoted to revert anonymous vandalism, we have to keep Wikipedia be free for any anonymous IP to come here and ruin all the work? Can anyone tell me why a simple thing as registration, which is also free for anyone and takes 2 seconds but can provide for more effective methods of defending ourselves against vandals, ruin Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" tagline? Thanks.) AdamDobay 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think THIS is what you are looking for. There have been many debates in the past, though. I'm all for this restriction, but it will never happened. There are too many out there who agree that 'anonymity' is the holy grail of existance, without realizing there is no such thing on the internet. I've personally known people who are so paranoid that big brother is watching them, that they refuse to use any website that requires registration (save maybe email). So, wikipedia and its sister sites become havens for these types of extremely disturbed users. Unfortunately, the tech-geek mentality breeds such paranoia, and thus a comparitively large percentage of users on these sites fall into that category. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If one of the long-term category editors were to make it to adminship, I believe they would be able to temp-lock vandalism ridden articles, thus solving the problem and keeping it 'in-house', so to speak. But who among us would be so bold? ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to change the topic of security, but is this topic even worth such a debate? I mean, I can see debating to finalize what should be permanent on the page, of course, but neither side is going to sway the personal opinions of the other. The majority of the evidence shows that it's Piper's child. The lack of concrete identification in the episode leads some to speculation. Each side could tye and reason and argue their fingers off, but neither is going to change their own opinions. I mean, I'm just saying... Shondrea 30 July, 2006
I don't think it's about swaying the personal opinion of others. It's not about us changing what they think. It's about them coming back over and over and changing this encyclopedia so it suits their opinion. Having an opinion is fine. Imposing your opinion on other people is not fine. They keep coming back changing a number of articles based on no proof but on unbased opinion, but Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. AdamDobay 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to those who do change the page, I don't think it's right that Wikipedia give the impression the child was definitely Piper's. No-one knows for certain so, until we do have definite proof, why should there be this idea she is Piper's daughter just because some like the idea all three sisters go on to have three kids themselves? The page should reflect the fact that the girl's identity is in dispute and state the case for both sides, without unfairly slanting towards one point of view. Cosmic quest 16 October, 2006

  • Who cares for God sake, she was only in for 5 seconds and its not that important, so would everyone get their heads out of their holes and fight about something worth while!

[edit] Links to other pages

I recently came across the page Book_of_Shadows, and was wondering if there were a bunch of these that are unlinked, and floating out there in wikipedia-space.

A few that I noticed were:

I imagine there are others. Should we be collecting these and have some sort of page with these links in them? I'm not sure of Wiki standard for this. What thinks ye? --Joe Christl 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your definition of "unlinked" is... ;-) Book of Shadows is linked from the Charmed template (that's at the bottom of almost every Charmed-related page), giving it several hundred pages linking to it. Same with the List of Family and Friends. Both are also included in the "Charmed" category, giving another way to find them. The page on Orbing isn't linked quite as much, but it is in the Charmed category (so you can find it that way), and is linked to from a couple dozen episode pages, as well as from all the major characters possessing the power, and the Charmed main page itself. So I'm not too concerned that any of these pages are "floating" aimlessly around the wikispace, they all seem pretty grounded to me. But by all means, if you come across any others that seem stranded, let us know and we'll try to fix it ASAP. --Maelwys 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Also curious as to what exactly you are meaning. On the left-hand side of each page, you can click the "What links here" link to find out which other pages, well, link to the article in question. None of the ones you mention are orphans. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
They all get their traffic. The top two could use some work, but otherwise they're fine. Zythe 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Crikey! I never actually looked down there! All this time reading this page, and I just noticed that down there! My fault. Please ignore this whole splurge (embarrased)

[edit] OK

I've had to redirect Agent Kyle Brody and Henry Mitchell (Charmed) now, but the fact that someone went to the trouble of creating these pages makes me wonder if anybody wants this infprmation. Each page was essentially a paragraph + an infobox, and I thought they were all covered in the Paige Matthews article. But maybe someone feels they deserve an article. Although, I think it's more someone thinking "Well Leo and Cole have articles, you're just being mean to Paige!". While I understand we have plenty of pointless articles Alec (Charmed) for instance, I was wondering if I could get some input. Should we expand everything to be more like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse articles, with articles for everything from Fyarl demon to Gwendolyn Post and Nina Ash and cutsie little infoboxes, or should we try to minimize the amount of Charmed articles (keep everything as it is)? Or maybe someone would like a compromise, where we create a Paige Matthews' boyfriends page for Glenn, Richard, Kyle, Henry and a small section on others, using their individual redirects for categories? Any opinions? Zythe 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we have to make what we have good. That is the first priority. Most of the television pages I've seen are pretty bad anyway, with no real encyclopaedic value, let's make this of some. On no sub-sub-subpage do I see anything about why the topic is significant, exactly like the Fyarl demon article. Why are Fyarl demons relevant to the show, culturally relevant, politically relevant or whatever? They appeared in one freaking episode. I mean come on. The article even states that we know next to nothing about them, then talk reeeaaaaally much about what happened in the episode. Unneeded. Perfectly unneeded. AdamDobay 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of this growing into a WikiProject Charmed, and having pages on everything. Maybe not to the degree that WikiProject Buffyverse has gone. Adam's right; one article for every single thing seems overkill, but we could grow a little. We can also get listed on Wikipedia's Project page. I'm also a great believer in procrastination (i've been meaning to procrastinate, but haven't got around to it yet). If we don't do the project, perhaps a singular page that has a good deal of side-characters related strictly to each Charmed One; probably a name other than boyfriends, though.  :) --Joe Christl 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
We do have lists of charmed characters, but they go downhill because a lot of the show's fandom consider it "the best show eva!" and similar to those who like to make go over the top. For example, each infobox is great to start with, but some pedantic fan will come along and add every single power and family member, regardless of notability, so we have to reach a compromise by rephrasing these attributes. Sometimes they'll add things that simply aren't true. Like the edit about Chris and Billie's wedding, and all their children. I don't think we actually need a project page, since those of who are going to care about the quality of articles already seem to discuss everything well here.
One thing that's been bothering me is that Charmed's definition of witch, demon etc. is so stretched that they practically warrant their own articles. I mean, a witch in Charmed isn't typical of witches in other fiction or neopagans. They're more their own magical species, with certain discrete gifts, unlike the undefined nature of the powers of Willow Rosenberg etc.
Should we create a Witch (Charmed), Demon (Charmed), and Other Charmed species (for things like Cupids, Guardian Angels, Guardians of the Hollow, Firestarter, Empath etc.) or would it be pointless, or hard to upkeep? Zythe 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarpedon (Charmed)

Since I don't watch Charmed, I wanted a second opinion on this article. Sarpedon (Charmed) was proposed for deletion as lacking context, but I fixed that issue. However, I'd hate to deprod it if this was some one episode demon who ought not to have an article in the first place. If someone familiar with the show could comment on its talk page/deprod/merge/whatever, that'd be great. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarpedon was a one-episode demon in Someone to Witch Over Me. While somewhat notable for being one of the few demons who actually was able to kill two of the sisters, and for heavily advancing the plot of the seventh season, this is already covered in the article for the episode. The Sarpedon article can be deleted. AdamDobay 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hell, speedy delete would be good. Zythe 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Charmed/Recent changes

A few months ago, I created a page at User:MiraLuka/Charmed recent changes. The page contains a list of and shows recent changes to Charmed articles. I just moved this page to Talk:Charmed/Recent changes because I haven't been very good at maintaining it, and I'm hoping others will help if they find it worthwhile. I just gave it a full update, so it should be fine until a new Charmed page is created. I'll be adding links to the page on top of this talk page. —Mira 07:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering where my second-favourite favourite page had gone to (after My Contribs)! I was already improvising by using Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Charmed characters! Just a minor edit since the new page should be Special:Recentchangeslinked/Talk:Charmed/Recent changes! :) Zythe 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darklighter arrow

I've put it up for Articles for Deletion, comment here. ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subtopic Modification

I see someone has added a massive number of books to the article, badly cluttering the page. While my first instinct was to simply delete them as irrelevant or create a Charmed books type of page, I began to wonder if perhaps the existing Charmed broadcasters and DVD releases shouldn't be renamed Charmed multimedia, thus capturing all media sources, and thus providing a place for the books without having to create a new page just for them. Thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think Charmed books should be its own article only if someone familiar enough with a lot of them would be willing to write the stub. I've read some, but I never considered them very good. Err. The family and friends article is prone to getting stuff about "Cassandra Warren" and other alternate-continuity characters added, and I've suggested before they make either Charmed books, List of Charmed books or pages about the more popular ones (eg. The Brewing Storm (Charmed book) (about Tyler, Firestarters and other elemental variants) and Whispers from the Past (Charmed book) (the one with all the ok-but-not-TV-show-endorsed continuity bits)). You'd also have to note how the books and show have different interpretations of [{Wizard]]s, Merlin (real... fake... whatever), Camelot, the nature of the sisters' powers. You'd have to note each book is in its own continuity, loosely based on the TV show, as in some characters inexplicably possess other powers or their powers work differently. It's a lot of work but I think it's notable enough for a Wiki article, even if it was a bit sketchy. It could look quite nice with pictures of the covers.
I definitely think the bit about books needs removing from the main page for the time being, because it looks terrible and we have it in the history for the eventual copy/paste. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I could support a separate page, given it isn't even a canon source. And, as you said, they must not be very good, considering i've never heard anything positive about them. Really, their inclusion is so much fluff, compared to the DVDs etc. In any case, they need removing from the main page. If anyone wants to resurrect them elsewhere, they can pull the data from Page history. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Just want to point out canonicity and notability aren't the same thing. Because its content doesn't "count" in the TV universe, isn't to say they aren't notable. Doctor Who and Buffy comics and books have a page for each book, but then the books were largely compatible with canon, with the exception of those Buffy novels that were later retconned (ie. all the "season 8" variations, or when characters who previously met on paper meet on screen) but were neatly placed as "not considered canon universally" or whatever the Template for deletion says. The Doctor Who ones are quite clever, because nowhere do the books contradict canon, but some fans would like to believe some of the suggestions in the novels and audio plays aren't true because they suggest strange and complicated origins, past lives and whatnot. What was I saying? Canonicity isn't notability. Who's to say what universe is more "accurate", if they're all fictional? Canon as notability only works in things like Legend of Zelda, where the chronological order of the series is a matter of debate. The thing is, we technically could write long bios for every book and whatnot, except I don't think Charmed is popular enough or of high enough quality to warrant it or get it completed quickly and well. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, I just don't want to see books listed on the same page as the TV Show, especially when they are considered non-canon. Mentioning the books of Star Wars (aka, a brief overview) on the main page, for example, would be okay, since all/most are approved as canon. That just doesn't work here. However, even if they were to be moved to another article, I'm not sure including a link on the main Charmed page would be appropriate, since for all intent and purposes, the books represent a whole other (parallel) universe, much as Star Trek novels do. Basically, its about de-cluttering the main page, as well as keeping that information that has no bearing or affect on said article out of it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As my spouse and I have been involved in the translation of eight Charmed books into Hungarian, I can assure you that the novels I've worked with do not hit the notability scale.

  • All of them were written by non-notable authors (and as a personal view, many of them are poorly written)
  • Almost all of them have no connection to the canon Charmed universe besides basic story elements like witches and warlocks and an occasional two or three spell per book
  • Most of them employ very simple story clichés considering setting (the girls go to Stonehenge, the girls go to the circus, etc.), plotline (Scooby Doo-ish meeting 3 people per story, one of them turning out to be a warlock), or characters (one-time boyfriends who usually turn out to be warlocks) who by the way have not much character depth, not even the protagonists

So in a nutshell, the books are a simple adaptation of the central few elements of the Charmed franchise, written by semi-amateur writers, with no control or checking from the actual creators of the show, with no cultural relevance. For me that equals non-notable, and I would spend no more than a sentence on the fact that such books exist (without a list of book titles, I mean if someone is interested they can look up on Amazon or something). AdamDobay 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portrayed by

I see that alternate actresses have been added to the Portrayed by sections of each Sister. Although I can see why this is worthwhile information, I don't qute think that they should be listed in that spot of the page(s). I mean Frances Bay portrayed Phoebe Halliwell for just one episode, and listing her in the Info box is over-weighting her involvement into the character. Can't we find a different spot to list the information regarding Frances Bay, Ellen Geer, and Donna Hardy? --Joe Christl 01:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Information of this nature almost certainly belongs in a Trivia or Notes section...just like one-episode demons or whatnot don't really deserve their own page, a one-episode guest actress doesn't need to be prominently listed next to the actress who portrayed for the rest of the series, IMO. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I think it's important especially for Ellen Greer and Gordon Wells who were Piper and Leo in the end. I also feel it's notable because these actors portrayed the characters which is really all the field asks for. They're not given first bill and I asterixed their episodes with the intent of making sure nobody thought they were perhaps recurring across the series. It's different to a body swap episode (ie. Eliza Dushku is listed in the same spot for Buffy Summers, just as Sarah Michelle Gellar is listed as having been a portrayer of Faith Lehane). I don't see why they shouldn't be in that spot, they are the character, they represent what the actor is supposed to look like in X years. ~ZytheTalk to me! 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piper's Children Debate

If Piper had another child, she would have mentioned having another child. She mentioned her restaurant, Leo teaching, her kids taking over, but no daughter. There were no pictures of a girl on the wall with Piper's sons (and why would she only have a picture of two of her kids but not include all her children in the photo?), Chris and Wyatt were the only ones shown when she mentioned her kids taking over. Everything points to Piper only having two children. People are fanwanking trying to make others believe that some shot of a girl in that one scene was her daughter when nothing backs that up and everything else shown points to Piper and Leo only having two children. There is no proof that the girl in that scene is Piper and Leo's daughter and nothing to back it up. There is more than suggests Piper and Leo only had two children. People that watched the finale that did not read spoilers thought the little girl was Phoebe's. Since Phoebe was seen picking up Piper and Leo's kids in Witchness Protection along with her own daughter--who was played by the same girl that appeared in that scene--and Piper was saying "Phoebe's kids" as she handed the girl the lunchbox, it appears that was indeed supposed to be Phoebe's daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 22:28, July 30, 2006 (UTC)

This has been covered many times before, most recently in the "Final decision..." section of this talk page. —Mira 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Charmed Sons nominated for deletion

I have nominated The Charmed Sons for deletion based on the Original Research, Verifiability, and NPOV policies, Notability and Fancruft guidelines. AdamDobay 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 August discussions

[edit] Tense of the article

Ok I have issue with the article using the opening sentence of "Charmed was an American television series that ran ...". I think just because it has finished doesn't make any difference it should read "Charmed is an ..." because it is still running in other countries. If we use "was" in this article then one could argue the "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was a fantasy novel..." because it has already been written. All books and TV programmes are in the public domain and can theoretically be accessed at any time so they should all be referred to in the present tense.--NeilEvans 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I've started to wonder about this myself. My initial instinct is to mark it as was since it has completed its production run. I've scanned many of the other TV shows here on wikipedia and some of them are is, and some are was. We need a grammar professor in here! --Joe Christl 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a style issue, not a grammar issue. Wikipedia style usually refers to attributes of books, TV shows, and so on in the present tense, because after all, they do still exist. "The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from Babylonia . . ." I'll change over the article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, there are people actively supporting the current tense. So scratch that for the moment. Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction:

Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" when read and exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense.

As far as I'm aware, that's general practice. Really, though, is Charmed no longer a television series? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, They showed the last episode here in the U.S. on May 21, 2006. --Joe Christl 02:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this has more to do with being serialized vs timeless. A book typically tells a tale that is timeless, such as "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" or "The Illiad", and thus requires present tense. A *serial* television show is something that becomes dated, given that it uses real people, normally set around a real and current time. In this case, once Charmed ended, it ceased to exist in the present, and has been placed firmly in the past. To use the present tense when describing it is like saying "The sisters are writing a spell to vanquish the demon-of-the-week" to describe something that happened four years ago. In general, because most serial television takes place in "real time", it seems that once an episode has happened, it should be referred to in the past tense, just like real life would be. After all, it attempts to mimic reality with its own twist, right? When writing an article for a serial TV show, I do not see where present tense should be used at all. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I do believe it is correct that all fiction should be refered to in the Perpetual present tense. Just because Charmed has finished doesn't make any difference. If Charmed article is to be left in the past tense then all articles relating to it need to be change to past tense eg. Leo Wyatt was a fictional character from the WB television series Charmed. etc.
I've just read through Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction again and it does say that according to Wiki policy all fiction should be in the present tense --NeilEvans 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well In the past, I've supported was, but I'll support either, now. Either works for me. --Joe Christl 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaners (Charmed)

Someone created this article. Could be good. Would require infobox, expansion, clean up and links in relevant episodes. Or, we could simply redirect to Forget Me... Not. But expanding it into Description, Purpose, Inconsistencies, Trivia etc. would be quite good. If finished, it would sit nicely next to Neutral: Avatars, Hollow, Firestarters. Any input? ~ZytheTalk to me! 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I say merge into Forget Me... Not episode. Cleaners aren't more important than any other good or bad parts of the Charmed mythology that appeared in one or two episodes altogether. I believe that for an effective academic coverage of the series, its main topics would have to be centered around a few longer articles much rather than being spread across the 'Pedia in very small little articles. Alternatively, an Elements of Charmed inner mythology can be created, but that holds the risk of every other demon and whatnot being included. AdamDobay 07:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You've got a point. And about the second thing, you'd have to use {{Main|Elders (Charmed)}} a lot.... Also, what would be "Charmed mythology" - Charmed leprechauns? ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Under Charmed mythology there should be the basic structure of the Charmed universe, witches, demons, warlocks, whitelighters, elders, the classical mythology realm, etc. AdamDobay 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
(Whoops, sorry, Zythe, I fixed your html code but it registered my name instead.)
Fixed that :). Oh that sounds good. We could include that picture from Desperate Housewitch when Leo was training Billie. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I don't think we should. I've paused my recording of that episode at that instant in hopes of understanding the Charmed universe more... but it's complete gibberish. There's Elders, Witches and Warlocks on it but in no sensible structure, not to mention that the rest is simply stuff in Latin that makes no real sense. AdamDobay 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah so I'm not alone! :P Charmed props, like the writers, again simply didn't care heh. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where to say this, so I'll say it here. I notice in the episode "All Hell Breaks Loose" it mentions that the cleaners should have appeared. Isn't possible that the council of Demons and Elders created the cleaners after this episode? They could have been made to ensure nothing like this would happen again. It's not like they just appeared, the Cleaners must have been created/established at some point in time. Also, in many episodes the same line is mentioned that the cleaners did not appear, but in the episode “Crimes and Witch Demeanors” didn’t the council of Demons and Elders agree to allow the Charmed ones clean up their own messes, I’m fairly sure they were not just talking about the events of that episode but future events as well. ~Silence_Knight

I think we should make an article for the cleaners, because they are a little bit more important than firestarters. firestarters didnt really have much to do in more than one episode. unless you count christy as a firestarter. the cleaners were mentioned in i think 3 episodes ( i could be wrong) and firestarters only in 1. If no one wants to bother making it, i'd be more than happy to make it myself. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Adding to the above, why are we linking them to the forget me not page? they were also in the episode with the whole trial and pheobe losing her powers thing (forget title) what makes this one any more important than that?? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as the Firestarter article mentions, Christy was one. It also shows how they can be turned either good or evil (which warrants their neutral status on the Charmed infobox). However, I don't really believe that either Firestarters or Cleaners warrant an article, as they are both quite minor (excluding Christy). I would, though, propose resurrecting the idea of creating a "Charmed mythology" type of article, to lump these excess articles into. And, remove Firestarters from the Charmed infobox (which I might do just to be, ahem, bold). -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

In a segment about charmed on this website, it mentions how the programme made a mistake. Chris says that his mother ( Piper) dies when he is a young teenager, this website then says how it was stupid that we saw the future e.g. final episode, and how piper was infact alive. The programme did not make a mistake, the charmed ones changed the futre when saving Wyatt, because Wyatt was saved it caused the future to change and so infact Piper nevr died, the programme did not make amistake86.41.146.251 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaley Cuoco

Should Kaley Cuoco be listed as staring because she has only been in one season? There was some dispute if she should but she is listed in the title sequence so I think it deserves to be there. Think outside the box 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think only multiple season cast should count. No Andy, Billie, Chris, Dan or Jenny. Only Prue, Piper, Phoebe, Paige, Leo, Cole and Daryll.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, only the recurring characters should be listed. Malevious
I disagree. I think that Dan's, Billie's and Chris's plots were substantial enough to warrant 'starring'. Afterall, the opening credits listed them as such. Syri 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Syri
Chris was in 4 seasons, he was in Oh my goddesss, All of Season 6, an episode in season 7 and Forever charmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.95.3 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Very true; however, his season 5, 7 and 8 appearances lised him as "guest star". Season six listed him as "starring" 70.130.46.129 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Syri
Kaley Cuoco may have only been in one season, but the finale of the whole series was pretty much based on her turning evil! I think Billie pretty much made season 8! I think she should be listed as starring. P:S- unrelated, but I think s8 was a bit of a let down. Apart from the finale... WHICH WAS GREAT!!!! Bubble bunny
Billie was only in season 8, if Chirs, who was in 4seasons(even if some where just guest starring in one ep) doesn't get listed in no way should Billie get listed. Also, you personal opinion on Billie isn't a reason to list her. I personally think she sucked and should never have been brought in. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay! Now BREATH already!!! I wasn't talking about my personal opinion of Billie, I was talking about how alot of the Season 8 storylines revolved around her! Bubble bunny
Yes it did, just as previous seasons revolved around the source, the avatars and zankou but none of them are listed. Just because a single season revolved around her doesn't make her important. The source was in like 3 seasons or something and he killed off a charmed one but he doesnt get listed so why should billie when she couldn't even decide if she was good or evil. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational Box

I created a more structured navigational box for the Charmed pages and wanted to get people's opinions on it before adding it to the Charmed articles. Is anyone in favor of using the new formatted navigation box? --> Template:Charmed_Navigation_Box

TJ 08:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it :)~ZytheTalk to me! 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
i think its too big Malevious 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we test it out to see how it will look in an article? Perhaps the main page? If it doesn't work it can always be removed later.TJ 06:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
All these tests should really have been carried out using your user space... god knows they're already trigger happy to delete templates. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ya these tests should've been done on your user space not all the charmed pages. i reverted a few of them but i aint got time to do them all someone plz help. you shouldn't go around and change everything because you like it. The old box was working just fine, this one is way too big and have too much useless info on it Malevious 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a test. I think that it is pretty much complete, and wikipedia does encorage its users to be bold when editting a page. Besides there was only one objection to it, not an overwhelming amount of users who "don't like it".TJ 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
yet only one other user that did like it.we're doing perfectly fine with the one we have now. make a page on your user space that compares the 2 in an example article and why dont we vote on it? then its fair Malevious 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually two users like it. I am a user too and my opinion counts just as much as yours does. Why are you objecting to the navigation box when you do not have a clear valid reason for it not being used other than "the old one worked just fine"? And I don't understand how the new navigation box has useless information when it contains the exact same information as before, the only additions are character links to the main, supporting, and recurring characters. It seems like you're trying to dictate how things should be without giving a valid reason just because you think the new navigation box is "too big".
Seeing your edit I will do as advised and make a comparison.TJ 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
(god damn thats a lot) A lot of the characters that are in there are mentioned in the main article and dont need to have their link on every page. I do like some of the things you added to it, but a lot of it doesnt need to be put in it. Malevious 01:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but those links lead to sub-pages with more in-depth information on the characters. The navigation box is used on all Charmed pages, users can quickly connect to the links in the navigation box no matter what Charmed page they are on for quick references. You said a lot of it doesn't need to be there, exactly what other things does the a lot include?TJ 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

-->Comparison Navigational Boxes <--

I used the Melinda Warren article to compare the two navigation boxes.TJ 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
one thing i dont think we need is the warren line witches. they're all in the characters page and such. I dont think we need a lot of the recurring or suporting characters.Chris Perry, Billie Jenkins, Andy Trudeau, all lasted 1 season and arent really need on the box. if you merge Supporting Characters: Leo Wyatt, Darryl Morris, Cole Turner and Recurring Characters: Victor Bennett, Close friends into one thing and got rid of the warren line, it would make it much smaller and look nicer. Also not realted to the differences, why is magic school listen as an item/artifact? and one more thing, we dont need the Evil beings link being listed twice. And another non-related to the difference, why are firestarters listed as neurtal? wouldnt they be just like regular witches, they can be swayed to both sides? Malevious 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Chris Perry appeared in three seasons of Charmed, he was a supporting character in one season and a guest star in two seasons. His reoccurring appearances throughout more than one season shows how important he is to the series. Andy Trudeau only appeared in one season, true, but he is referenced in at least two seasons all together (seasons one and two) if not more which shows his prominence despite his limited amount of appearance in the overall history of the show. Billie was involved in the final season and played an important role, along with her being billed in the opening credits. Her role is more pivotal than that of other former cast members not listed (Dan and Jenny Gordon). It would make sense to have her listed.
The Warren Line is a significant part of the series, each character listed there is either shown or mentioned throughout the seasons of the show. That is why only the prominent members of the Warren Line are mentioned instead of every single one. I'm not sure if you explained how the information is useless or unneeded.
As for the Supporting and Recurring Characters, I can see why recurring characters may not be so important. I'll edit the comparison with that section removed from the Navigation Box.
Magic School is listed under Items and Artifacts because it is an "artifact" per se, just as The Nexus is one. Both are locations but considered to be artifacts. Firestarters are listed under Neutral Characters because that is where they are listed in the original navigation box. Also Firestarters are not necessarily witches, they are mentioned to be mortals. Christy being a witch and a firestarter adds up to her being a very powerful witch.TJ 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is Chris listed as a suporting character then, when hes a warren witch? i agree that the warren witches are important but they dont need a link to their page on every charmed article.

Okay, I definitely prefer the old one. By your userspace I meant subpages btw, for instance User:Triple J/Melinda Warren test is yours to do what you want with. Since it's an old, finished show... it doesn't matter anyway. You should have created the template at User:Triple J/Charmed navigational box and then pasted the code over {{Charmed}} if someone decided it was superior.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] awards for charmed

i am new.. so i don't know how to edit the page properly... from this website, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158552/awards we can know the awards received by Charmed. i think it's nice to include this in the Charmed page thanks...

[edit] Template

I'd advise some of the editors who have worked to increase the quality of Charmed articles help to monitor {{Charmed}} and protect it from unncessary and frankly ugly additions of every character people can think of. Navigation templates are not lists of main characters and fan favourites. That's what the lists and the main article are for, which is why they are linked to by the template. ~ZytheTalk to me! 11:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grandmama

Was there a character named Grandmama in Charmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.138.202 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. At the end of the series finalé, Piper was called Grandmama by her granddaughter. This occurred while they were both sitting on a couch or chair, reading the Book of Shadows. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powers of Paige's Kids and Piper's Girl

Billie's parents were both born to a witch parent and a mortal parent but they had no powers. Doesn't this mean it is possible that Paige's kids and Piper's daughter have the possibility of having no powers at all? If so then shouldn't this be mentioned in their section? ~Silence_Knight

This isn't really an issue that needs to be included, given that we have zero proof either way. It would just be heresay. But to answer your question, it seems entirely possible that any child born to magical parents could have no powers, given that use of magic (and magical abilities) appears to be a genetic trait, or at least is partially influenced by genetics. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is possible, but as far as anything is concerned, it seems like Paige, Wyatt, and Chris were the first in the Halliwell to be conceived with magical fathers. So, I do not think that it's possible if you're a Halliwell. RangerKing 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Halliwells are very powerful but Billie's grandparents were probably quite weak —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.95.3 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVDs, music, and TV, oh my!

Obviously, Charmed has spawned a great many things in a great many places. To this end, I propose renaming Charmed broadcasters and DVD releases to Charmed multimedia, to be a one-stop shop for all external Charmed media. This will also get the soundtrack info OFF the main Charmed article, where it really doesn't need to be anyway. It's also a somewhat simpler article name to remember, and given that the terms 'DVD', 'broadcast' and 'television'/'TV' are sprinkled throughout the article, someone using search should have no problem finding the page either. Opinions? -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And that way if somebody really wanted to write something about the horribly-uncanon novels as well, they'd have a place to do it that would keep that off the main page as well. --Maelwys 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Shh! Don't give anybody such ideas. I'm all for spreading knowledge to all humanity, but some information needs to be suppressed ;) In all seriousness, I'll try to start offline work on revamping the existing page soon. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea. The people at WP:WHO have done a similar thing very well with their "Doctor Who spin-offs" article.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable occurrences"

On the main character pages there is a section called "notable occurrences" which are all of poor quality, and the notability of said occurrences is significantly POV. Would it not be better to make a "transformations" section, listing everything from becoming (telepath, genius, goddess, genie etc.) with appropriate episode links and descriptions? :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this. Give it a try and see what you can come up with. Anything would probably be better than what we have, though be careful because I don't think everything in the occurrences sections deal with transformations. Another title might work better. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Is the RPG A Charmed World notable enough for a separate article? Should there be a mention of it here, or should it just be deleted? --Elonka 07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This should absolutely be deleted as non-notable, fancruft and possibly advertising. It was created and has been edited almost entirely by a single person. I'm placing in AfD. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the quick action, and I concur with the speedy-deletion.  :) --Elonka 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melinda Halliwell IS Piper's Daughter

According to The Book of Shadows - Volume 2 the child we see with Piper and Leo at the end of Forever Charmed IS their daughter. Here's the excerpt: "The Charmed Ones reclaim Magic School, and Leo begins teaching again, a career he maintains until he retires. Piper sells P3 and opens a restaurant. Their daughter, Melinda, is born when Chris is three." This is officially licensed book that is published by Simon Spotlight Entertainment and is the "official companion to the hit show". The authors have been working closely with the cast and crew and therefore it isn't information based just on the show as we saw it.RangerKing 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to a website where this book is represented? I cannot find a copy on Amazon. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure, but they might have meant, The Book of Three, Volume 2. It claims to be volume 2 of the only authorized companion guide...so I'm guessing that's what RangerKing meant. --Onorem 10:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Three-2-Charmed/dp/1416925309/sr=8-1/qid=1165529367/ref=sr_1_1/105-1298218-0663615?ie=UTF8&s=books. It doesn't claim and it is the only authorized companion other than the first volume. RangerKing 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't care whose Melinda is; old fight. But I DO wanna comment that unless the writers/producers of Charmed had some sort of involvement in the book, any information should be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, I don't feel that any information that wasn't shown in the show (like the fact that she was born when Chris was three) can really be taken as truth. A fan just tuning in would never know that. Syri 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Syri

The entire cast and crew were involved with the book as each episode has an interview with someone from the cast and crew. This includes Brad Kern.RangerKing 14:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because a book says it's authorized doesn't mean that it is part of canon. Look at Star Trek; there are hundreds of authorized novels and manuals and companions written, but the last I checked none of them were considered canon by Paramount. On the other hand, all authorized Star Wars books are considered canon by LucasFilm. Everything depends on what the producer/production company deems official, so until we know for certain, this book should not be used as a source, unless it is a quote from Kern or Burge (no, the actresses or other crew wouldn't count, since they aren't considered final authority figures). -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Brad Kern, Aaron Spelling, and E. Duke Vincent all "talk" about things regarding the show and various aspects of it. Infact here's the acknowledgments page. "E. Duke Vincent, Brad Kern, Jim Conway, Jon Pare, Jennifer Rees, Sheila Cavanaught and the entire cast and crew of Charmed for all their help in bringing this book together. Additonal thanks goes to everyone at Spelling Entertainment, CBS, Viacom....". There's even a special introduction and foreward written by Aaron Spelling and Brad Kern respectfully.RangerKing 03:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Most books do have such acknowledgements, doesn't mean the entire volume is canon. What I'm saying is that only those individuals in authoratative positions, such as Kern, Spelling, Vincent, etc, should have their quotes accepted as truth. With that in mind, do the forewords state that the book is canon or fully official? -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
personally, I don't think it can be canon if it was never in the show, the reference from which canon is taken. So while it may be pssible that Melinda, whosever she is, was born when Chris was three, someone watching the show would never know that. Thus, I don't think it could be canon. 75.27.230.48 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Syri

There is no foreward, the last part of the book is an interview with Brad Kern. Syri, canon goes a lot further than just seeing it on screen. Almost every series has a "bible" which discusses things that don't always make it to the screen.RangerKing 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive family

I've noticed on the charactor pages, under "notable Family," that all family is listed. Is it really neccessary to list every family member, and how they're related? just seems a bit much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syri (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I absolutely agree; the question is who is considered notable for inclusion on any given page, and who isn't? -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on each charector. The sisters should each list all thier sisters, and perhaps husbands. Piper and Leo should list thier childern, and Chris n Wyatt should list each other (since I still don't think Melinda should have an article). But I don't think the brothers should list every aunt and uncle, or the sisters, thier brothers-in-laws or nephews. I mean, Chris Wyatt (Leo's father) is even mentioned in some articles, which is completely unnesacary 70.130.46.129 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Syri

[edit] Unecessary?

I think there are a few articles for the Charmed section that are not needed, most especially Melinda. All disputes of identity aside, she really wasn't a substantial charector at all. The only reason she was even a big deal was the debate; fans made her a bigger deal than the 3 second scene in the show. A new fan, just watching, wouldn't give much notice to her charector, or even know her name. Also, her article contains little more than listing how she's related to everyone. As for the first Melinda, with whom she shares an article, she was only in one episode, and had a small role at that. Bianca played a larger part than her (not that Bianca should have an article either). I've already brought this point up in the Melinda talk section, but I thought I'd bring it up here. 70.130.46.129 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Syri

[edit] Notable family in Infoboxes

(This topic has been transplanted from Talk:Prue Halliwell as it has farther-reaching implications than just the single article. - Huntster 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Interesting note I found in the infobox.

"Please note that under the Family section only those people count who Prue had known IN HER LIFE. She NEVER MET Coop, Henry and her sister's children and had no interaction with them, so THEY DO NOT COUNT AS NOTABLE FAMILY."

What kind of stupid rule is this? Following this logic, Paige should not be listed as her "notable family" since Prue never met or interacted with Paige, either. And since Prue did at least appear in the same episode as Piper's daughter, Melinda (Morality Bites), she should be listed. I'm just being my usual annoying self. I have no intention of changing anything. PatrickLMT 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, No, No. That stupid rule shouldn't apply. Would your children still be related to some one in your family who is dead? Of course they would. Just because they had no interaction, doesnt mean anything.--Dil 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree,i say we remove that rule and come up with a compact list of family members. (We don't need every child/grandchild) I think Piper Halliwell, Phoebe Halliwell, Paige Matthews, Victor Bennet, Patricia Halliwell, Penelope Halliwell, Leo Wyatt, Wyatt Halliwell, Chris Halliwell is a good list. having all the brother-in-laws and nieces/nephew is way too much. Wyatt and Chris played a big part in the series so they should be listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping things simple and compact, I would suggest only immediate family should be listed, with perhaps Grams being the exception for the sisters. Normally I wouldn't mind stuffing all sorts of information into an article, but the Infobox is supposed to be a concise list of data, and putting every mentioned relative seems completely overboard. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I just don't think the rule "met or interacted with" makes any sense. That would axe Paige, and she's Prue's half-sister. You could also just make a small mentioning that she is the aunt of Paige's two children and Piper's three children, for instance, instead of listing each child individually. Regarding the list proposed by the unnamed commenter above, I would only add to that a comment like "other nieces and nephews, and in-laws," if for no other reason than to make it clear that the list is not complete. But I agree. That's a good list. PatrickLMT 11:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Aye. I'm also not keen on one-off relationships such as Zile... Here's two potential lists for Prue, the first one keeping in mind immediate family for brevity, the second adding that line you mentioned:
  • Sisters Piper Halliwell, Phoebe Halliwell and Paige Matthews (half-sister); Parents Victor Bennett and Patricia Halliwell; Grandmother Penelope Halliwell.
  • Sisters Piper Halliwell, Phoebe Halliwell and Paige Matthews; Parents Victor Bennett and Patricia Halliwell; Grandmother Penelope Halliwell; various other nieces, nephews and in-laws.
I particularly don't like this second method, because while it isn't difficult to add that last line, it is rather pointless if it only leaves the reader wondering "What other nieces and nephews and in-laws?" Rather than adding a potential point of confusion, simply omit that line and lets focus on the immediate relationships around that character. For Piper, her children and husband should be mentioned, but again, leave out those that aren't immediate. Phoebe should list Cole because he was a major player over several seasons, plus Coop and children, and Paige has Henry and her kids. See where I'm driving this? Focus on the individual, instead of the entire family. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Paige be listed as a "half-sister"? Apart from that, I don't really like the idea of leaving the list incomplete while implying by omission that it is complete, but I guess it would work. Perhaps a note in the text of the article. PatrickLMT 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are right. I've changed the first item above to reflect it. should it be after, or before, the name? Also, I don't believe that by omission the list would be considered complete. Anyone visiting another sister and seeing their children would know that they are related to the other family members. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what sort of method is used to categorize the family, just as long as "notable family" doesn't keep turning into "Every dang family member ever to appear on this show or be mentioned" Less is more, and more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.27.230.48 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Alright, it's been discussed, but nothing has been done. One new thing I've found to be ridiculous is that on severl pages, the Notable Family lists every member, THEN says simply "etc". Um, there aren't any members left to make an "etc" If no one disagress, I'm going to slowly trim down the "notable family" to mainly include parents and siblings. Any obnjections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syri (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

None here. Included should only be immediate family: parents, siblings, and possibly children and spouses. I would have done this already, but real life issues have come up, and curtailed most of my editing here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdates of the Charmed Family

Currently, I have been researching the family history of the Charmed Ones. I have gathered that the Season One episode Is there a Woogy in the House? refers to the Halliwell manor being bought by the Charmed Ones’ great-grandparents , P. Baxter and Gordon Johnson, in 1906. However, according to the error-filled family tree in Pardon my Past, P. Baxter was born in 1897. This means that when she was only 9 years old, she had married and was buying a house with her husband… I just wanted to ask permission before removing all birthdates of the “1920s Cousins” in List of Charmed family and friends as they seem to be one of what appears hundreds of errors which plague that family tree. (Examples include: placing ancestors in wrong generations (notably Melinda and Brianna Warren); adding male ancestors - Grams: “300 years […] not a male in the bunch”; claiming that Melinda Warren had two children; “Jack Halliwell” instead of Allen Halliwell; “Victor Jones” instead of Victor Bennett; “Prue” instead of Prudence; many more wrong birthdates; Patty being born when Grams was 13?; and so on…).

For those who wish to debunk the “not a male in the bunch” argument as being medically impossible, then simply consider how medically possible it is for Piper to have three children after doctors told her she would struggle to conceive the first time. Or how possible it is for Patty to have two daughters after she was told such an occurrence would be “medically impossible” (That 70’s Episode). Or, even for that matter, it is for demons and warlocks to run around and get blown up by four girls with magical powers. Therefore, I am convinced that the family tree is beyond a joke.

Additionally, if P. Baxter was born at an earlier date (for instance, 1877) it would mean that Grams could have been born in 1921 (as many fans has suspected as to be her true birth date, instead of 1931) which, in turn, means Patty was not born when Grams is 13 (1950).

Moreover, if Brianna Warren was the Charmed Ones great-x3-aunt, she would be Patty’s great-x2-aunt; Penny’s great-aunt and P.Baxter’s aunt. Therefore, this causes Brianna to be P.Baxter’s mother’s sister. Thus, there is all the chance that P.Baxter’s mother lived during the time of the Crimean War (1854-1856) because Brianna (her sister) fought during that particular war. Making P.Baxter’s birth closer to 1856 makes the entire family history seem more connected (even if there is the chance that Brianna time-travelled ). Also bear in mind that Brianna may have been the mother of either P.Bowen or P.Russell, so their births would also need to be pulled back.

Thank you for any time taken to read this or to reply.--Danny 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I think it is best left as it is. The purpose of the article is to state what is given in the show, not to try and conform it to reality just because some of the writer's didn't bother to do their homework when researching storyline.--NeilEvans 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with NeilEvans, lets just leave it as is. we're not here to judge between whats logical and whats stated. Lots of things are said in the series that aren't right logically (hell if we get technical how many demons are running around??). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

There are books for the show out there. I was thinking that an article should be made to list the books with their covers shown. Opinions? --Meraculas 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to create such an article, but as they are not considered part of the Charmed continuity, I would recommend only a "See Also" link on the main page to link to that article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I made the page. I wasn't able to get the titles for all the books, or front cover art for all the books (I found some for the ones with Prue). That plus my hands are cramping. I have a layout for the stuff that I haven't got yet. I also placed a canon statement at the bottom. Hope it will do. Anyone can continue it, I will try to continue tomorrow. Check it out at List of Charmed books. I wasn't sure if I should, but I did, put a link to the page on the template and in a see also on the main page. --Meraculas 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The page will be deleted soon. It is nothing but copyright vios. If you are gonna make a page like that do not copy things directly from other sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned the page up, and it seems to no longer be on a "speedy deletion" list. Sorry about the problem. --Meraculas 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Templete

I kind of like the template for Charmed (I am more used to the one for Buffy and Angel so it seems really weird not having so much information on it). I was wondering, if not adding some characters to the current template is bad, why not make a templete just for characters. You can see a suggestion for this template on my profile page Meraculas. On the List of Charmed family and friends Richard Montana is redirected to it, but he doesn't have a blurb. Also of the people on it, Victor Bennett should at least have his own page, he is the girl's father. Also, if Hannah Webster has her own page then why shouldn't Kyle and Richard. They both had an impact on the charmed ones (specifically Paige's but who is counting) life. Sorry, rant. What do you think? --Meraculas 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like the template, well done Meraculas! It would be a nice addition, however, I would prefer a template which included each article regarding 'Charmed' AND the characters. As for the "rant" on Richard, Kyle, etc., I personally think that the Charmed family and the Charmed friends should be on seperate pages. Definately, the friends blurbs need some work as they appear vague and undetailed. Also, I agree that Victor needs an article to himself.
Good work, Meraculas. --Danny 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
While it is visually nice, the current template has come about as a result of much discussion as to what is needed and what is not. While it certainly isn't perfect, that general layout should probably remain. Also, while I understand where you come from regarding character articles, the idea is to keep minor characters from sprawling out into the ether, and instead have them on a single page. Those that have their own articles are probably the result of some overzealous fan creating them. Both Hannah and Rex should certainly be moved to List of Charmed evil beings. Quite frankly, the number of minor articles that have been created, as well as the organization of many other Charmed-related articles, bothers me somewhat. It really is a mess. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject.

Im thinking of proposing a Charmed wikiproject, this way we can get more people to keep everything organized and sort out the minor articles. Would any of you guys be interested in a charmed wikiproject? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see why not. After all Buffy etc. have their own project along with various others, so I feel a Charmed Wikiproject would be a good idea. It would allow people to see where articles could be improved etc.--NeilEvans 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and make a proposal here. This may help us keeps up the quality on all the articles. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some mention on how Wiccans take the tv series?

I've been looking through the pages, and I see no mention of a connection between Charmed and Wicca, from which the tv series draws most of its stuff from. Every Wicca site I go to mentioned, in one way or another, how Wicca is NOT like Charmed. Even the Book of Shadows and Grimoire pages for Charmed make no mention to their reallife counterparts, and how they are so different. Just curious if this was cut out of the article for a reason. Disinclination 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge nothing of this nature was ever cut from the article, just that it really holds no relevance, at least in my eye. This is fiction, just the same as Buffy or The Craft were fiction, and should easily be recognized as such. If you can think of a decent way of presenting this information, then that'd be great; however, you might want to post it here before adding it to the main article, just to see if there are any other opinions. I really don't think it's necessary, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to clarify the issue. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can find a source that relates Charmed to actual wiccan practices, anything you write for it will most likely be removed as OR, which is why nothing exists comparing the 2, besides the fact, like hunster said, its fiction. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am wiccan and my take on the show is that I love it, but the way the show shows Wicca is way off from the religon.--Dil 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I am as well. While there is a concern that outside individuals might get the wrong impression about Wicca, I don't know that it's a big enough deal to worry about. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Trees

So I went and played with the family tree template some more, and finally got it figured out to work well. I made two versions, the first is the more "standard" layout, but gets cramped if you try to add the next generation into it. The other option is a different layout, and much longer (can't really use that as a footer or anything) but also much easier to read the different generations. Any input/thoughts? --Maelwys 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel #2 is much nicer. While it takes up considerable room, it presents the data in logical, orderly, and infinitely expandable format. Either one of them is really too large to be used as a footer anyway, so might as well pick the one that's easiest to read. Refresh my memory, where was this going to go? -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
They're both really great. Good going, Maelwys. One request would be to add P. Baxter and Gordon Johnson as Penny's parents. Other than that, both are easy to read and neat - I like 'em! Additionally, I think that one should be added to the List of Family and Friends article or on a seperate page of it's own. →Danny 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
One possibility would be to add it to a section that can remain hidden until someone clicks on it, similar to how people hide infoboxes or other material. This might be necessary for adding it to a page, given their lengths. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Piper and leo's third Child is called Melinda.


 
 
 
 
 Penny Johnson
 
 
 
 Allen Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Victor Bennet
 
 
 
 Patty Halliwell
 
 
 
 Sam Wilder
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prue Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paige Matthews
 
 Henry Mitchell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Phoebe Halliwell
 
 Coop
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Leo Wyatt
 
 Piper Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wyatt Matthew Halliwell
 
 Christopher Perry Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Penelope Johnson
 
 Allen Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Patricia Halliwell
 
 
 Victor Bennet
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prudence "Prue" Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Piper Halliwell
 
 Leo Wyatt
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wyatt Matthew Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Christopher Perry Halliwell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unnamed Daughter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Phoebe Halliwell
 
 Coop
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unnamed Daughter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unnamed Daughter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unnamed Daughter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Samuel Wilder
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paige Matthews
 
 Henry Mitchell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unnamed Daughter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unnamed Daughter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Henry Jr.
 

[edit] Guest Stars

Can we please come up with a standard for people being listed as guest stars. Im tired of going to a page and see some guy who played gaurd 1 as a guest star. Not every person who is in an episode is a "star". And on some pages Leo,Daryl and Cole are listed as guest starts on others they're stars, what I've been doing is putting the guest stars (ones who play a significant role) in the infobox under guest stars, and making a section for "episode stars", that lists the sisters, and leo,cole and darryl (and any other major recurring characters ie chris, wyatt, billie, ect). What do you guys think? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, one issue I have is that the actor who played adult Wyatt should only be considered as a guest star. Only actors in the credits should be given "episode star" status. The same applies to Marnette Patterson (as Christy), Finola Hughes, Jennifer Rhodes, the Simmons twins and so on. Other than that, it all seems justified. →Danny 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Finola Hughes, Jennifer Rhodes, and the Simmons twins, are in so many episodes they should be under episode stars. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that isn't how the series classifies them. Rather than creating our own categories, lets stick to how the series handles them. If they're in the main opening credits, they are Episode stars; if in the secondary opening credits or end credits, they are Guest stars. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hows this, only list them if they played a signficant role in the episode. Instead of listing every minor demon the pops up for 2 seconds before being vanquished, only list them if the sisters looked them up in the book or something similar. We don't need "demon #1 and demon #2" listed under guest stars. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed season summaries

Yet another rant on my quest to perfect the Charmed articles! I was looking through Charmed season summaries, and I was wondering what you guys think about doing a major clean up of the summarys (referencing some of it too) and then merging it into List of Charmed episodes this way all of it is in one nice and tidy article. What do you guys think? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed fully. There is no need for separate articles to exist, when each season header in List of Charmed episodes can easily be appended with a brief explanation of the major events of the season. The hit-by-hit analysis currently existing in Charmed season summaries needs to be quashed without mercy (I don't even have it on my watch list, I care so little about it). -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed

as of today season 1 is being rerun also why have the themes beenn trimmed down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.3.199 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Being rerun on TNT? In Canada? Okay, they've done that many times since airing in syndication. What themes are being trimmed? Please explain what you are talking about...it is rather abstract. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, inlame man's term when the episode starts there's the prologue followed by a 15 second opening and then it changes all the arial views that have been a trademark of the series.74.195.3.199 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you are saying, though you didn't say where this is occuring. What relevance does this have to the article? -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In the USA.74.195.3.199 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What he's saying that when Charmed is air on TNT, the opening sequence is cut. It now only shows the show name, then it skips to the actor credits, then skips to either a commercial or the opening of the show. I've also been wondering why its doing that. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

User:FergieFan101 is changing the names of several episodes. I am not a fan so maybe I'm just missing something but as far as I know, we tend to follow tv.com conventions and other places listings. Could someone look into this? You guys know more about it than I do. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed he is recreating a bunch of articles under the name the WB used to promote the episodes. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We'll just have to keep an eye on this fellow for the time being. I see you've reverted the redirects, and I'm redirected the new pages, so things should be fixed now. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Well I'm glad that I wasn't seeing things. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article?

Should we apply or is it not that good? ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Hrmm seems pretty good. Maybe put it up for review and see if anyone notices something we haven't. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharmed_1b74.html"