Talk:Charmed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charmed article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Charmed is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
June 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
TV
Television Portal
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.
Assessment comments
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) 
Archive

Archives

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] 2007 July

[edit] Charmed / Halliwell vandal

This seems as good a place as any to record a persistent vandal who produces silly fork articles about the Halliwells. Hallmarks are: "Perky Prue and Sexy Halliwell", pictures from screen caps paradise and user names ending 87. Socks include:

-- RHaworth 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Very curious. No question you were right about your diagnosis of mono-mania. Nice catches there...I've not seen any sign of activity since the time you wrote on my talk page about the person. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed Family

I know this isn't a forum, but I don't know where else to ask. From the Charmed Ones, does the family continue to get stronger, or do they get weaker as the family continues through the generations? Killswitch Engage 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides Wyatt, I'm pretty sure they aren't as powerful. I wouldn't say weaker, but they don't have the Power of Three or anything. This is merely my guess from what I've seen, it was never actually stated it they continued to grow or what. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure nine next generation Charmed children are pretty powerful.
Throughout the show (until Wyatt was born) it was stated over and over that the 'three sister witches' would have the Power of Three and they would be the most powerful witches of all time. This has been repeated at least twice that I can think of in episodes where they were summoned to a particular time (like that Halloween episode) because they summoner summoned the most power witches of all time. When Wyatt was born however (and subsiquintly Chris), it was then stated the Wyatt was the most powerful creature ever (they can't exactly be modest huh?) because he was born of a Power of Three witch and a white lighter. Chris was actually born by a Power of Three witch and an Elder, so I have never understood why Wyatt was more powerful. Anyway, it worked for the plot for those 6 (?) years before Piper was pregnant that each generation was getting stronger and stronger and accumulated into the Power of Three and it was assumed their offspring would just be regular witches, but it was more dramatic for the story to make Wyatt all powerful, and in the very last episode it was revealed all three girls had three kids, and they were all powers of three. Ugh, does that answer your question? LOL Chexmix53 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Wyatt Was Twice Prophesized, which probably makes him more powerful than most, but phoebe ends up having three girls, which could be the next power of three, but there hasnt beeen anything official on this Harmless 77 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Charmed

List of terms in Charmed is currently Asked for Deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Charmed. If non-episodic references can be found (e.g. books, probably including companion guides; non-trivial third party articles if they exist), consider adding them to the article before the AfD gets closed. – sgeureka t•c 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 August

[edit] Table

I have put the information regarding secondary characters into a table. If it is approved, I will add it to the main page. Danny 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Role Relationship Portrayed By
Andy Trudeau Andy is the sisters' childhood friend and Prue's love interest. He serves as the sisters' initial connection to the police force once he learns of the girls' activities, as well as the first conflict between the girls' secret and normal lives. The demon Rodriguez, kills Andy while he is trying to protect the girls in the finale of season one. Ted King (Season 1)
Darryl Morris Darryl, who is Andy's partner, takes over the role as the Halliwells' police connection after Andy's tragic death. He continues to cover up for the sisters once he learns their secret, even after the events which lead to him almost being executed through a lethal injection, until his wife later forces him to move to another state. Dorian Gregory (Seasons 1–7)
Leo Wyatt Leo is the sisters' Whitelighter in the beginning, and soon becomes romantically involved with Piper. Leo's magical promotions provide the show's portrayal of a supernatural ladder of success and struggle between career and family. His relationship with Piper is the first of many conflicts between the Halliwells and the Elders. Brian Krause (Recurring Season 1; Seasons 2–8)
Dan and Jenny Gordon Dan moves into the house next door with his niece, Jenny, and instantly falls in love with Piper. They temporarily date, but Dan can not take the place of Piper's first love, Leo. He later moves away, at the end of season two, whilst Jenny was written off suddenly. Greg Vaughan and Karis Paige Bryant (Season 2)
Cole Turner Cole is Phoebe's first husband; he is a half-demon, creating situations over which the sisters clash. He is originally a powerful villain, later taking other forms and roles throughout his character's history. After his final vanquish at the hands of the sisters, he continues to watch over Phoebe, silently and unseen. Julian McMahon (Seasons 3–5; Cameo in 7)
(Adult) Chris Halliwell Piper and Leo's unborn son, Chris, came from the future to help defeat the Titans and save Wyatt from turning evil. His adult form dies at the hands of Gideon. Due to a change in the timeline, he later reappears in the series finale. Drew Fuller (Season 6, cameo in 5, 7 and 8)
Billie Jenkins Billie is Paige's charge. While at first over-confident in her abilities, she eventually becomes a student of the sisters, helping them to maintain their normal lives. After being swayed by her sister to betray the Halliwells, she eventually sides with them in the series finale. Kaley Cuoco (Season 8)
  • This seems entirely unnecessary. Tables are fine for things like what you did on Charmed multimedia, but for regular sentence-form material, I feel this detracts from an already valid format. I'd suggest not implementing. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, the info is fine the way it is.--NeilEvans 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theme song

on the last box set of charmed there was a different theme song you should add this? and also should we create a new "List of terms in Charmed" page?--Mhart54com 13:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1) No, because we're primarily concerned with information on the television broadcast. That's where first data should come from. 2) I should hope you wouldn't. Wikipedia has a policy against the recreation of deleted material when it is substantially the same as the old data. In this situation, there's no way this couldn't be anything but a random collection of terms that doesn't express importance. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Though I do love how they AfD our terms, close the AfD as merging into said list, then AfD the freaking list itself. Can we say war on tv articles? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
ok it was just an idea i had, oh well.--Mhart54com 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Per WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, out-of-universe notability needs to be asserted and independent, non-trivial verifiable sources provided. Both the Charmed character articles and the individual episode articles do not aspire to this standard. Could interested editors in these pages perhaps redress these concerns by providing verifiable, independent sources and establishing clear out-of-universe notability? Information such as awards specific to individual episodes, public controversies or notable critical reaction, unusual ratings achievements, demonstrable cultural significance and so on can all be adduced to provide out-of-universe context. Also, note that per the guideline, certain content is specifically discouraged. This includes: lengthy plot summaries, trivia sections, continuity gaffs and other, pure in-universe content. If such information cannot be provided, it wouldbe better, per the notability and verifiability guidelines to redirect these articles and merge the information tot he relevant "list of" page. Eusebeus 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources exist, I've seen them, I just don't have time to go back and find them, first week of senior year and all. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 September

[edit] Re-runs and Death

I think someone should mention that Charmed re-runs are still shown on TNT. I also think someone should fix the whole characters dying thing to almost dying for the characters that don't die perminently because I don't know if you guys forgot, but Leo can't heal the dead! Thanks for listening to the new guy! -CharmediPodLover —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmediPodLover (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd honestly think it would be a bad idea to get into listing current showtimes on the main article. That is the reason we have Charmed multimedia, with its extensive list of airtimes and other information. If we add one country to the main article, people will start moaning about adding additional countries, and it will clutter up quickly.
As to your mention of the characters' death lists, I wholeheartedly agree, and furthermore believe the lists should be removed entirely as simple trivia and unencyclopedic (not to mention, I'm sick of the minor edit wars between IPs who can't decide if one person or another died eight or nine times). Do I hear any takers on this proposal? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree about taking out the part about how many times they have each died. That is trivial and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I think that whole death part should be shortened and added to another part of the article. I will do it if someone agrees. Chexmix53 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Former Members of the Charmed Ones

Considering that in the episode "Forever Charmed" Piper, Patty, and Penny use a power of three spell; wouldn't that mean that they were atleast for awhile the Charmed Ones? Thus under the area "The Charmed Ones" Penny and Patty should be listed as "Former Members" in the "Membership" area, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.114.84 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 September 2007

I don't believe so. This sounds more like a continuity error, as didn't the original "Charmed Prophecy" stated that the Charmed Ones would be three sisters? Don't think a mother and grandmother quite fit this bill. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Patty and Penny did not use the power of three. They mocked it, by saying a spell with three Warren witches. Danny 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of good / evil beings in Charmed

For info (I figure this is the best place to put it):

The article List of Charmed good beings has just been deleted as a blatant, word-for-word copyright violation of http://www.thecharmedones.co.uk/Pages/Goodbeings/default.asp .

List of Charmed evil beings is 90% copied from http://www.thecharmedones.co.uk/Pages/Evilbeings/default.asp and will go the same way in the next 5 days unless fixed. Neil ☎ 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cleanup : Merge and Redirects

Articles about individual episodes and characters of this series currently do not conform to the out-of-universe perspective that is an official policy of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#PLOT gives the relevant overview. It is worth considering closely the policy statement: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. All of the episode and character articles that I have reviewed across the Charmed universe fail to conform to this standard and hence do not deserve individual articles, as currently written. Interested editors should act to introduce real-world context and assert out-of-universe notability if they do not wish these articles to be redirected. Additionally, it should be noted that interested editors are encouraged to join or, when necessary, start a specific project wikia should they desire to retain the kind of in-universe information that is currently proscribed at Wikipedia. See WP:FICT#Relocating_non-notable_fictional_material. Eusebeus 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • This is so stupid. You've just deleted tons of peoples' hard work because of supposed out-of-universe notability (btw, I don't even know what that means). I mean, there's episode guides for Simpsons and other TV shows on here. Why can't the Charmed one be there too? They really need to stay here on the site; they're interesting to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.115.52.27 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have a question, why don't they have a tag (if they do, please correct me) for articles that are going to be deleted that says, "This article has been argued to not meet Wikipedia's standards because of XX reasons, and will be deleted in XX days. If you disagree with the ruling, please discuss it on the discussion page." This would fix these problems of people spending all this time to create something that they think is appropriate, and someone else just deleting the work because they didn't. Please let me know if there is something like that already. Chexmix53 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billie Jenkins

In season 8 when Kaley Cuoco joined the cast as Billi Jenkins she was not a supporting character. She was a main character the whole season with most storylines centered around her. She should be moved up to main character.Aladdin Zane 09:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Charmed Ones are the main characters. Though admittedly the story-lines did have her tied in, and she was in most scenes in Season 8, Billie isn't a main character. As Leo is a supporting character, so is Billie. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought a main character was any character featured in the opening credits? In which case, Billie was. Bubble bunny (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is that only the Charmed women, the four of them, are the main characters as far as this article, most websites, and a couple of books I've seen are concerned. Yes, unfortunately, Billie was a focus in S8, but that was budget dictated so, just as Leo is supporting, so is Billie. Anyone who could be removed and not affect the show is supporting. CelticGreen (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Prue was removed and it didn't affect the show XD. I'd think whether or not a character is 'main' depends on the episode or season. Billie was a main character in the last season, but not in the first 7, so I would not include her. I would however consider Leo a main character, as he was central to the majority of the series. - MK ( talk/contribs ) 10:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Prue was replaced, not removed. There's a difference. Billie was not a Charmed One. She is not a main character as far as the article is concerned. The Charmed Ones are the mains, Cole, Billie, Leo, Andy, Darryl, et al are supporting, not main characters. CelticGreen (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because Billie was a focus in S8 doesn't mean she counts as a main character in the show overall. The Source, Zanku and Chris were all focuses for a season(s) but they don't get listed either. If someone like Leo, who last I checked was in every season, doesn't count as main, how can Billie be a main character? She could've died at the end of S8 and it wouldn't have effected the show one bit. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So I would assume that this closes the topic? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Billie shouldn't be a main charactor. But Leo should be. Leo was on the show from the first season to the last, and a very important part of the show. He was on the show twice as long as Prue, and should be considered a main character. Chexmix53 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in the Charmed universe

I'd like to delete the reference to Robert Masello as a mythology expert on the show. When he said this in "The Women of Charmed," he was clearly joking. He made a remark like, "Would a demon wear a hat to a party? What would a demon wear both before and after Labor Day?" As far as I can tell, his sole association with "Charmed" was as co-writer of "How to Make a Quilt Out of Americans." Ajwenger (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and kill it off however you wish if other data points to this being the case. Also, very nice work in grammar editing, looks good! -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. Looking at his IMDB profile [1] he did contribute to Charmed by writing and editing. An editor would point out flaws including anything mythological. So your conclusion that his sole association was writing one show is incorrect. KellyAna (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue who this guy is or what his relationship with the show is, but I should take this moment to point out that IMDB is entirely unreliable as a source, as it is nothing more than a different form of wiki (one that is even more closed off to scrutiny than Wikipedia is...you cannot tell who suggested what be added, and there is little if any fact checking going on before data is added). -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
After rewatching the documentary, and doing some research, he does (in my mind) appear to be an actual demonologist. Although he was making jokes in his interview, his writing credits (as noted on his website: http://robertmasello.com/) appear to indicate his status as someone in the know about witchcraft. I don't see why he would lie about something as trivial as this, but it can happen... Danny (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well since you personally don't trust IMDB, here's his site: Robert Masello.KellyAna (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings?

Why is it so hard to find each season's average ratings/rank online? I added a table, but it's incomplete, so if anyone has any information of each season, they could add it. If anyone knows where to get ratings, please let me know and I'll be happy to complete the table myself. LoveLaced (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need that on this page? We already have ratings and such on the episode list. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that it shouldn't be on the page. If they were top ten for their run it would be different but they were mired in the middle if not hanging toward the bottom so often. I would say its unnecessary and, as you say, hard to find references making the verifiability questionable. I would say to remove it but that should be a consensus decision. KellyAna (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, most of the ratings have been removed from the episode list. I don't know what happened to them. The only mention of ratings in the article is of the first two episodes and the series finale. And I think it would an interesting fact for the page because even though the overall rank for each season may have been middle of the road, the show was originally a strong ratings gainer for The WB, even in it's final season it had the fourth best premiere on the network, and at one time was pulling #1 for the 18-49 female category. EntertainmentWeekly.com and tvguide.com have the two ranks I was able to find and I'm sure if someone took the time to dig through such sites, they could find all the ratings. =/ LoveLaced (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
However, it can only be a fact if you reference your information, which you have not. The whole table could be summarily deleted as "unsourced information" without a thought. You claim you can't find the info and then suggest someone else find it. At this time I question its addition without consensus. BTW, the #1 claim for a particular demo means nothing. It's overall for the night and overall for the week and for the week they were horrid. Ratings are per Nielsen, not Entertainment Weekly opinion polls. People can love the show but not watch it when it's on. KellyAna (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, I usually source what I find, and I'm sorry about that. I'm about to head out for work, but when I get home tonight, I'll pull up the info and cite it. Also, the ratings I found were Nielsen, not polls. Entertainment Weekly posted the entire season's Nielsen list.LoveLaced (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I forget sources sometimes too. I have no problem with it being there but also think it should be well sourced, as you say you can do, and it not try and hide things (as whoever was removing the rankings seem to be doing) even if they aren't pretty. I do think there are others who might weigh in on it being there. If you are going to source the info, then it should definitely be there. KellyAna (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the table for now. If any such data is placed into the main article, it should be formatted in paragraph form. If you want to build a table, try working something into the List of Charmed episodes article, perhaps into the small table at top that shows the years each season took place. As for the ratings that were previously in that article, I removed those as well. They were, yes, completely unsourced, and had been that way since the article began. Good luck in trying to find some reliable (official) sources. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I put the season ratings up, because I don't think it belongs on the episode page. That page is for single episode listing. It's the same thing on every other TV show page. And this time they're sourced. There's really no reason to remove them.LoveLaced (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be on the episode list page, it certainly isn't for any other television show. I also don't think, as there was a conversation in progress, it should have been summarily removed. Many show pages have ratings. My only concern was addressed by LoveLaced in her promise to source the information. I think it's right to have it there as long as she, or whoever updates it, sources it. I further disagree that it should be in paragraph form. All the other ratings boxes I've seen have been tables. Hers look a lot better than some I've seen. KellyAna (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode listings

While we're talking about tables, the addition of an episode table is redundant to the list of episodes and not standard for Network television shows. The examples cited, Disney shows, are not consistent with any Prime Time Network show I've found. As such, I've removed the table again and feel it should be discussed. Overuse of tables is discouraged. A table for a table is redundant. Shows I've looked at: Thirtysomething (TV series), ER (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), Las Vegas (TV series), Law & Order which has a table, but no all encompassing episode list article because of the 18 years it's been on the air, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit which doesn't have a table because their episode list article is on one page. Consistency indicates a table is redundant and not necessary as all seasons would go to the same page. KellyAna (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

Hello, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_and_Jenny_Gordon is up for deletion and no one has yet commented on it. I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those who know the most about it. Hobit (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Ratings

Hi everyone. I've attempted to make a table displaying information regarding U.S. ratings for Charmed, including relevant references, however, every time I display it, the table appears incorrect. I was wondering if anyone would be able to help me in fixing the problem. Danny (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Season Season Premiere Season Finale TV Season Viewer Rank (#) Network Rank (#) Viewers (in millions)
1st October 10, 1998 May 26, 1999 1998-1999 118[1] 2 5.4
2nd September 30, 1999 May 18, 2000 1999-2000 120[2] 2 5.2
3rd October 05, 2000 May 17, 2001 2000-2001 117[3] 2 4.9
4th October 04, 2001 May 16, 2002 2001-2002 129[4] 6 4.2
5th September 22, 2002 May 11, 2003 2002-2003 128[5] 6 4.5
6th September 28, 2003 May 16, 2004 2003-2004 154[6] 5 4.3
7th September 12, 2004 May 22, 2005 2004-2005 132[7] 7 3.5
8th September 25, 2005 May 21, 2006 2005-2006 132[8] 7 3.5
  1. ^ "TV Winners & Losers: Numbers Racket A Final Tally Of The Season's Show (from Nielsen Media Research)", Entertainment Weekly, June 4, 1999. 
  2. ^ "TV Ratings 1999-2000". 
  3. ^ "TV Ratings 2000-2001". 
  4. ^ How did your favorite show rate? (2001-02). USA Today (2002-05-28).
  5. ^ 2002-03 Ratings.
  6. ^ 2003-04 Ratings. ABC Medianet.
  7. ^ 2004-05 Primetime Wrap. Hollywood Reporter.
  8. ^ "2005-06 Primetime Wrap", The Hollywood Reporter. 
  • Trying something there. Let me see what happens. IrishLass (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Your problem was the references in the titles. Those you generally put a comment in the paragraph description. IrishLass (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much, IrishLass! I've added the table to the page. Danny (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. Looks great and complete with references. Very good job and I'm glad I could help. IrishLass (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "TV Ratings 1999-2000"? What source is this from? Also, please be aware that forums are never valid sources except for first-person references. In this situation, the actual source must be cited, not the forum. The same goes for personal webpages like the Geocities one. It comes down to verifiability...personal webpages and forums cannot be verified. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've fixed the urls for the references on the actual table. None of the sources are from forums/fansite; I agree that they are often inaccurate. Danny (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll point to the Geocities personal site, the two Chez links, and the Google Groups link. The Geocities link may be okay, because it credits a reliable source, but we still have no way of knowing if the data is reliable as-is. However, the two Chez links references The Futon Critic (which I've seen mentioned on Wikipedia as completely unacceptable) and doesn't mentioned where on TFC the data is located, making verifiability useless...we cannot know where that site got their data. The Google groups link is similar. I think they are saying they got it from Futon, but that's a guess, and at the very least, I don't see any real indication of where the data ultimately came from. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I stole the Google Groups link from the ratings table on the Smallville page. As for the other two, they were the only sources of information I could find after hours of searching the internet. I don't think the information is wrong, I don't see why someone would genuinely want to send out completely fabricated data... Also, their research into ratings since the 1950s leads me to see them as a motivated team. Plus, their stats mirror information given from other ratings table around wikipedia, so I don't see any harm in using it... If anyone can find more reliable information, or data which contrasts that given, then feel free to add it...Danny (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring Characters

Apologies for not discussing before editing, but I saw the inclusion of Marnette Patterson's character Christy Jenkins on the list of recurring characters to be a mistake or added by an overly zealous fan of the character. As far as I'm concerned, a recurring character is someone who appears for a substantial number of episodes over a lengthy period of a show's run (as per Wikipedia's own definition). Considering Patterson only featured in eight episodes of only one season, I deemed her role as inappropriate of being labelled “recurring”. Therefore, I propose we either remove her from the list, or we adjust it to feature other characters/actor who have also appeared for eight episodes or more. For the second scenario, I have a prototype list below, featuring many characters who not only have featured in more episodes than Christy, but have also appeared in more than one-half of a season. The prototype lists characters in order of appearance. I hope others can see my point of view; making exceptions for Christy, whilst leaving out others who are just as, or more, deserving of placement on the list is inaccurate and unfair. Danny (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring

My only comment is your link to recurring character is not policy, it's just an article and it's essentially opinion as there's no references within the article. You can't use it as a basis for your decision to add or not add a character. Additionally, overly long lists are discouraged in articles and often reduce their status from good to B. Long lists have never improved an article in the opinion of many, many Wikipedians including those that approve articles for "good" and "featured" status. KellyAna (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, I appreciate that long lists are discouraging and unsightly, but we can't make double standards. Either we prioritise by having the most important characters (in terms of longest length and most number of seasons), thus expelling Christy, or we have it in depth as I have suggested. If you wish, we could format the prototype list in a more attractive layout (such as a table).
Additionally, I'm not basing my definition of recurring character solely on Wikipedia's, I'm just stating how it doesn't support the inclusion of Christy as recurring (especially without the others I have listed). Danny (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Role Portrayed By Length [1]
Penelope "Penny" Halliwell Jennifer Rhodes Seasons 1-8 (14 episodes)
Patricia "Patty" Halliwell Finola Hughes Seasons 1-5, 7 & 8 (9 episodes)
Victor Bennett Tony Denison (misbilled as "Victor Halliwell") Season 1 (1 episode)
James Read Seasons 3-8 (13 episodes)
Samuel Wilder Scott Jaeck Seasons 2, 5 & 8 (3 episodes)
The Source, Belthazor, Shax, Grimlock Janor Michael Bailey Smith Seasons 3-4 (14 episodes)
Bob Cowan David Reivers Seasons 4-5 (8 episodes)
Elise Rothman Rebecca Balding Seasons 4-8 (23 episodes)
Sophie Amanda Sickler Seasons 5-8 (11 episodes)
Sheila Morris Sandra Prosper Seasons 5-7 (9 episodes)
Jason Dean Eric Dane Seasons 5-6 (9 episodes)
Inspector Sheridan Jenya Lano Seasons 6-7 (10 episodes)
Little Wyatt Matthew Halliwell Jason & Kristopher Simmons Seasons 6-8 (43 episodes)
Older Wyatt Matthew Halliwell Wes Ramsey Seasons 6-8 (4 episodes)
Little Chris Halliwell Unknown Child Actors Seasons 7-8

An example of formating the recurring character information. Danny (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is NO to yet another table. They are just as bad as lists only formatted differently. It's also not consistant with other television show pages. See any Featured Article that deals with a television show, you wont see random templates placed for no reason.KellyAna (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, many articles on shows have tables to document cast information. Take ER (TV series), Characters of Lost and Heroes (TV series) as three examples. I personally think that a table makes the information look far more linear and neat, especially compared to lists with different line lengths. The table would look nice on the article. Danny (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Characters of Lost is a character page, not an article. What about a featured article? Have you found an article with tables for only some of the characters and not all that has been "Featured" status? KellyAna (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any consideration of using "relative importance" as a factor? Surely it is possible to hammer out some sort of general guideline as to who is acceptable and who isn't. Even then, if several editors can agree on certain persons to include, you can ignore established or impromptu guidelines and go with who best fits the article. My theory is that certain folks fall into the three general categories:
  • Main - the four sisters
  • Supporting - individuals who have been featured in the title credits
  • Recurring - the hardest group to quantify, but in my mind are characters who feature importantly in the show, and mostly "good" characters at that. I don't know why we currently include Sheila Morris, or for that matter Elise Rothman, since in the scheme of things they really aren't that important. To be honest, I'm fairly ambivalent about what goes here, so long as the list is kept very minimal. If it goes too far, I'd suggest breaking characters off into a "List of" article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Several good points, Hunster. As you've pointed out "recurring" is very hard to define, but hopefully we'll find a happy medium everyone can agree on. As you may have noticed, I've further modified the above table. In terms of "relative importance", I've kept the characters strictly family and multi-seasonal mortal friends. I think these are the characters who have the most affect on the personal lives of the Charmed Ones over the series' eight-year run. I thought that magical characters (ie: enemies, the Avatars and Elders) should be dealt with in their own "magical" sections (...will one need to be created/modified? I think we're missing a demonology article). Hence the reason why Christy is not on the prototype. The only exception I made for this was for Michael Bailey Smith as he has played so many important roles over a large number of episodes and seasons. Considering the Source was a background force for the first two seasons, then a major player in seasons 3-5, he seems important enough to be mentioned. Same goes for Shax and Belthazor. Additionally, considering Smith has appeared in more episodes than most of the other recurring actors, it seems he should be on the list. Basically, I thought that multi-seasonal figures who have sprung up in the sisters' lives over a long run, seemed to be "relatively important" in my eyes. Lovers who were only around for half a season (for instance: Kyle Brody, Henry Mitchell, Coop), despite how many episodes, didn't seem as important in terms of affecting the sisters over the full eight-year run. - Danny (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit: I'm not sure whether or not to add Melinda Warren (considering her importance as a character and the vast number of references to her on-screen, as well as in novels, guides, essays etc.) and Phoebe's Daughter (considering her influencing Phoebe's love/marriage/pregnancy arch from season six onwards) to the list... Any ideas? Danny (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Role Portrayed By Length [2]
Melinda Warren Tyler Layton (adult), Bobby Pyle (infant) Seasons 1, 3 (2 episodes)
Phoebe's Daughter Sierra Paris, Adair Tishler Seasons 7-8 (4 episodes)
As it stands, there is no way I could support such a massive list being included in the main article. This is only acceptable for a "List of" article, which might allow for your additional "magical" section(s), though to be honest I do question the encyclopaedic value in all this. We used to have "List of Charmed evil beings" and "List of Charmed good beings", but they were deleted as listcruft or somesuch.
Also, if such a "List of" character article is created, I would suggest that it be done in prose form rather than table form. In general, tables are discouraged if the material can just as easily be presented in another format; a good example of a list is List of counties in Tennessee...the material must be presented in this format because it is so disparate and would not convert well into prose. What you have above could convert, if you plan to include any sort of character description.
As I write this, I wonder if it might not be a valid project to fold most, if not all, character information into such a daughter article? Move everything except "Main" characters from the main article, fold in (and dramatically reduce the cruft of) List of Charmed family and friends, List of magical beings in Charmed, and any number of the individual articles in Category:Charmed (TV series) characters. There is simply too much information spread over too wide an area. Having a central article, I think, would be a very good thing, and should silence most of the accusations of fancrufting. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Little Chris was not played by "infants." An infant is a helpless child that can't even roll over. Little Chris could sit up, stand, all that.KellyAna (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Amendment to "Unknown Child Actors" made. I hope that's more accurate? Danny (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Guide

What happened to the episode guide? It was here a few weeks ago, and now I can't access anything aside from the first ever episode. I really hope it hasn't been deleted, as that would suck for those people who put in so much work to put it all together with the plot summary and trivia and stuff. And, if it has been deleted, why?! What reason could there be for deleting something as valuable as the episode guide? I love coming here to check out each episode as I watch them on my DVDs- it's fun to read the trivia.Socalledboothy (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been a long debated issue across Wikipedia, and it is generally determined that episodes should not have their own articles unless notability can be exemplified by certain means. Normally this is when multiple non-trivial, verifiable sources can be located for the subject matter (this is a policy of Wikipedia) or the episode represents something specific...in the case of Charmed, these are the series premier and finale, as these are generally considered automatically notable. Things are underway to improve coverage of episodes on Wikipedia through these new standards, so just give it a little time. Charmed isn't the only topic or television show affected. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So what happened to all the hard work that people did on creating each episode page? Did it get like copied onto some other hard drive to be put back once whatever rules are finally improved? I don't know. I just still don't see the point in deleting all of that because of a silly rule. Each episode page was done extremely well. I just don't like it.Socalledboothy (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the episode articles were about as far below 'extremely well' policy-wise as it was possible to get. No sourcing aside from the episode itself; tremendous amounts of trivia which, though entertaining to read, is not encyclopaedic; and borderline fair-use violations in the form of extremely long summaries (which became less summaries and more blow-by-blow guides). They were sort of pretty to look at, but were in no way deserving of individual articles. Just so you know, the articles are still there in the page histories if you care to look at them, but do not restore them. Also be aware that there is a Charmed Wikia site located at http://charmed.wikia.com, which is the most appropriate place for detailed material to go. Each episode should be documented there. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly couldn't care less if it was "far below" in regards to wikipedia policy. It was fun to read, what with all the spells, enemies, and episode trivia; that's all I care about. And I saw your post on the Episode Guide page, so I am reading the trivia that way as I watch the Season 2 and Season 3 episodes on DVD. But I always kinda liked having the actual page rather than a stripped down version. And I think for something like this, just the episode itself should be enough. A lot of long-running TV shows don't have tons of sources available for every single episode (I mean, if we only went by that, the only complete episodes we'd have on here would be The Simpsons and Friends, and that would just suck for people who want to read about OTHER TV shows they like), but it's something fun to read anyway. That's why I come to wikipedia- for something fun to read in regards to music, TV, and movies. I don't care if it's not Encyclopedic at all, just as long as it all makes sense.
Although, quick question- There are episode guide books available. Would just referencing them make the articles better? Because while Charmed was a big hit with fans (#1 top requested show to have DVD sets released for the longest time), it wasn't exactly something that was written about in newspapers and magazines much of the time, if at all. So finding lots of sources wouldn't be fruitful at all. Those books would probably be the closest we'd get to a real source.Socalledboothy (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing..."fun to read" does not make it encyclopaedic content. Those episodes that aren't sourced are slowly being removed as they have been here; such content is being outsourced to Wikia, to similar projects as I linked to above. And no, episode guide books are not acceptable source material, since they were written specifically for the show and don't assert particular notability. Like it or not (and no, I don't particularly like it), that's Wikipedia's policy. If you can't assert notability and back it up with good third party sources, it shouldn't be here. Focused content is Wikia's purview; that site should be much more widely promoted than it currently is. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They have only been merged, you can still read them in the revision history, just type the name of the episode in the search box click go, go to the top of the list, click the tile in (redirected from: _____) and there go to the history tab and from there click the one that's below the top. I hope this helps. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, okay. Who was this message intended for: myself or Boothy? If Boothy, I've already pointed this out above; if myself, I'm one of the maintainers of the List article. There's no need to resurrect old discussions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't that old, it's only month and a half old, but whatever. I was just giving a piece of advice, I got nothing else to add. Have a nice day. And yes it was intended for Boothy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing Notability For Characters/Consensus to Merge & Redirect

Time to continue putting the world of Charmed into encyclopedic order: this time with the character articles. To summarise the existing problem, per our notability guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT):

  • Most individual character articles are written from an in-universe perspective and they fail to establish real-world significance, supported by verifiable and independent, third party, reliable sources.

It is currently the consensus view that Wikipedia is not a fansite and as a result the bulk of the information we provide needs to be centred on the real-world impact of individual fictional characters. This clearly is currently not the case, so remedial measures should be introduced.
It is my view that no material exists which shows that most Charmed characters satisfy our notability and fiction criteria: demonstrable real-world impact does not exist. But I hasten to add: this does not mean that this is a correct assertion.
Per the recent arbcom ruling, which exhorts:

The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question.

editors are invited to contribute to the question of how individual characters can be improved to meet our standards. What we do not need are !votes unsupported by reference to policy. What we DO need is:

  • agreement to merge and redirect characters that fail to establish notability to the main Character list , or
  • clear demonstration that the assertion above, viz. demonstrable real-world impact does not exist is erroneous, in which case those character articles for which this is true should certainly be retained.

It would be salutary if editors could weigh in with specific reference to our consensus notability and fiction policies, since that is where the crux of the solution lies. Providing clear links to sources that substantiate assertions of notability would be particularly commendable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no notable external source exists for virtually anything Charmed-related. Kill off all the character pages--all of them--and either make a single List of page for them or fold everything into the main Charmed article. Face it, the episode articles were the only real valuable resource here...with them gone, there's no reason for anything else to exist.
This is only half tongue-in-cheek. There is no reason to keep the character articles given their pathetically poor state of existance, and can be better maintained as a single article. However, I strongly feel this current effort to purge virtually all pop culture material will at best result in significant damage to the 'pedia user base, and at worst result in the death of the project. It is, to be frank, inane and unneeded. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVDs?

I know there should be information about DVDs somewhere in this article. I know they exist, because I happen to own three seasons. I would add them, but I don't know the release dates.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it in the multimedia article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I Have All Eight Seasons And Can Tell You That Charmed Season Eight Was Released In The UK On The 4th April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor96 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know because I checked the Charmed multimedia place. This page got too long so they had to put the DVD information to another page, I know because I'm a revision historian. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An AfD you don't wanna miss/Sam Wilder

It's about Sam Wilder click here for more information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because Sam Wilder's page is being considered for deletion does not mean that the character is, he still played a part in the show when he appeared and he did appear several times. If you wish to delete his page and have a good reason that’s fine but deleting him from the recurring list is unjustified.TaylorLeigh (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And it wouldn't be up for deletion had TheBlazikenMaster not nominated it. Sounds like it's a personal vendetta against the character. Just because he wasn't seen, he was repeatedly mentioned throughout the show. Removing him is unnecessary.KellyAna (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This might sound unkind but TheBlazikenMaster seems to be taking it upon himself to decide who is important and who isn't. Though I will admit that that is part of the purpose of this website he is not the only one who reads this page. I think all further edits on this page need to be discussed before being carried out. TaylorLeigh (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't understand why someone who supposedly wants to improve the page would nominate characters for deletion rather than suggest the page be improved. It seems like an odd tactic. I have to wonder if the intent is to improve or not. KellyAna (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I admit I might have been wrong in nominating the article. But since the decision is close to merge/delete, and not keep, I really think it's useless to keep it on this page. Appearing in a few episodes doesn't make him recurring character in my opinion, it makes him a minor character. Even if he is around all those three episodes, that doesn't matter. It should be mentioned maybe in one of the character articles but not here. I know that it was right to revert me, I also know we should discuss this. He would fit in one of the characters pages, but being a main character's father doesn't automaticlly make him notable enough to be in this article. Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, two people already disagree with you and I'm sure once Hunster sees this, they'll disagree with you too. Because you've nominated the article, the information has to go somewhere. That's the point of "merge" to put the information in the correct location. Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts dictate he is a character of note and should be listed. He was a constant through the series "Mom left dad for her whitelighter" was constantly heard. Piper was afraid to tell her father Leo was a whitelighter because her "mom left her dad for her whitelighter." Paige wouldn't exist without him. He's a vital part of the show just like Grams and Patty. KellyAna (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make assumptions. I feel there is no point in him having his own page. Yes, he is an integral part of the show, but still a fairly minor player in the scheme of things. Heck, Coop and, err, Paige's husband I believe received more screen time than Wilder, and they most certainly don't need any more than a couple of paragraphs on a "List of" article. Same goes for this situation...his section in List of Charmed family and friends is all that is needed.
This is why I stay away from character articles anymore...they are simply too contentious. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like it's a personal vendetta against the character.
Did I ever say I have something against the character? No, I didn't, so don't assume such. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, stop speaking to me like I'm some kinda villain. Look, I knew what I was doing when nominating it, and I know what a recurring character is, a recurring character is a character that appears on the show every so often. Sam isn't a recurring character he is a minor character. Being a father of a main character doesn't make him any more recurring. You should maybe mention him in the article of his daughter, but not here. I know I'm right. So I am asking once and for all: Stop speaking to me like I'm some kinda villain, and instead respond to me like I am an average editor. Thank you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's been redirected

Oh and this article should only list characters that have appeared several times. There is a difference betweeen a recurring and mionr character, since Sam has only been in like three episodes, he is a minor. I personally don't find him "recurring" enough to be recurring. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I also added the necessary information to the character article. I still think he is too minor to be mentioned on the main television article. I will of course discuss this, if I get more supporters than opposers by the time it's April Fools' Day I will remove him from the main Charmed page. Believe me, I won't unless more people support my suggestion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not only my opinion, it's a fact. I know what I'm doing, I have been on Wikipedia for a whole year so I know how things work around here.
Please do not ever make such statements again. I don't care if you've been here five years, you have no right to bludgeon other editors into following your example. Personally, I agree with what you are saying, but you are saying it in an entirely inappropriate manner. Saying such things will not make people take you any more seriously. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I striked out the text where I acted like a king. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I reworded it, better now? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So far you're 3 to 1 for keeping him on the article. You have no support at this point in time. KellyAna (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's way too early to say that now, we will wait until April 1st. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's never too early and April 1st is too far out. The norm is a week, back it off although I don't think it matters, the info will be there April 2nd regardless of YOUR personal feelings and it is obvious this is personal for you. The fact that the character was not deleted, but rather merged is significant. It isn't about majority, someone who claimed in an edit to own something and have been here for a year should know that. It's about credible argument. KellyAna (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not all about me, if that's what you're saying. I do care, why do you think I added notice to this talk page? I wouldn't have if I thought it was all about me, is that what you're saying? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Added notice? What are you talking about? The recurring list has been talked about many times, no one ever questioned Sam until you and then you got his article deleted and merged. Your actions make no sense. KellyAna (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just look at the top of this section. I did warn about the nomination, and with someone who claimed in an edit to own something looks like you think I think it's all about me, which is not true. I might have been the first one wanting this removed, but stuff here get nominated all the time, so don't think I'm the worst nominator here, there are people that nominate all day long. You should bring this to WP:DRV if you disagree with my nomination. Again, I never said I thought it was all about me, and it looks like you assumed I did think so. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but I just don't know what else to say. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You are not making sense anymore. You're really just not worth it. At this point if you remove him you are going against consensus. KellyAna (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't, that's what I'm trying to explain, I don't think it's all about me. Common, let's face it, every good editor nominates something that not everyone agrees with, and thinks he's doing the right thing. I am no exception. And if I won't get more supporters by the time it's April, believe me, we don't speak of this ever again. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, since this is apparently difficult for you. April is too far out. ONE WEEK. That's the time limit for AfD's. That's the limit here. You don't set the limit with your threats. One week, March 25th. KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not threatening anyone, so I don't have any threats. I'm fine with one week, but I'm not threatening anyone, so don't call anything threats. For the third time I never thought it was about me. Could you stop sounding like you think I do think so? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
← Both of you need to calm down, heh. It is not that big of a deal, not the end of the world. Now, Kelly is correct that one week is the standard for these sorts of things, however, it is by no means a hard and fast rule. In this situation, I do think six more days is more than enough time for additional comments to come in. TBM, I think the perceived problem is that you nominated for AfD first and then warned us, rather than coming here and started the discussion to see if it could be worked out amongst editors. That way, you first get the local response, and then if you still go to AfD, you get the broader response. I do think you would have gotten a better response that way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I did post this section here at the same day I started the nomination, I just want Kelly to face the truth, I told her many times I never thought it was all about me. And I don't know if he believes that, but that's the truth. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, calling Kelly a him will surely calm her down. Her name is KellyAna, she's a girl. I'm of the belief Sam should stay in this article. It's unnecessary to remove him, it's one line, it's not like it's several pages of dialog about him. IrishLass (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you making a big deal out of wrong gender? I can't see the faces on the Internet, so there is no need to make a big deal out of it, I can't automaticlly see if it's a woman or not. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think one comment is "making a big deal" out of anything. Just pointing out the obvious since Ana is part of her name and it says "female" on her user page (which is how you "see" people on Wiki, going to their user pages). I know how she gets and calling her "him" won't win her friendship. You do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder though. I simply made my opinion to keeping Sam in the article known and advised you that KellyAna is a girl. IrishLass (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure Kelly is still a girl? She could be a woman. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that someone needs to be reported for incivility or at least warned, although Hunster seems to have tried and you don't seem to want to listen. Please, stop with the personal attacks, it's not very flattering and it doesn't lead to progressive problem resolving, it only escalates the issues. IrishLass (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not me, the discussion is over, I removed some personal attack and striked out the rest. It's not that big of a deal, don't worry, I'm calm now. We shouldn't speak of this again. Believe me, I never meant to ignore anyone, you're right I took it way too personally, but I'm done now. I think it's best if someone gets this to WP:DRV, since the deletion of the article didn't seem to be accepted after the deletion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review is for articles that were deleted and people don't think they should be. The article was merged which is acceptable. Why would you think it needs a deletion review? I'm sorry, maybe you're confused, maybe I am, what exactly do you want, all references to Sam completely deleted like he didn't exist? The AfD outcome was to merge the article, which was done. Do you want it back now? That's the purpose of Deletion Review. IrishLass (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right I am confused. I can't see how Sam is a recurring character, I can only see how he is a minor character. You are right, I am confused, recurring or minor, that's my confusion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay Blaziken, you appear to simply be stirring the pot, trying to cause trouble. Hopefully that is not intentional, but that is how it appears. To pull out the football terms, the yellow card has already been brought into play, let's not go to the red card, k? This is essentially a dead issue now, I suggest everyone drop the issue and let the heat dissipate for a good long while. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody asked if I was confused, I had to answer that, if you want the discussion over, I can't agree more. And believe me, I'm not trying to cause trouble, I already have calmed down. So there is absolutely no need to report me, I am completely calm. Though I'm still confused, I will just stay that way, I see no need to discuss this further. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This edit was unjustified. But this one answered my question

Resolved.

I really hate it when people revert me without a reason AFTER I ask for a reason. Why can't everyone assume good faith? I asked for a reason, instead I got reverted without a reason. Please don't revert me again without giving me a reason, I was only trying to help, reverting me without a reason is like treating my edit as vandalism, and that's not very nice. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna gave me a good reason, so the problem's been solved. That reason was good enough for me, no need to discuss this further. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad I could help.KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orb (Charmed)

I'm curious, why was this page removed? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to research and find the AfD. It really isn't notable and shouldn't exist so I can see why it was previously deleted. I think there should be one collective "Charmed Powers" page. KellyAna (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. The only thing notable about it is: "It's used to teleport through places", there isn't really much more special to say about it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The See also

Resolved.

I personally find it irrelevant, I mean, those lists aren't THAT related to the television show Charmed, I want to remove it, of course I wouldn't carelessly remove it, I'm not that kind of a guy. So let's discuss this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You have my support...any other takers? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I like see also lists and it doesn't detract from the article. IrishLass (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind showing me an example? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Many articles have "see also" sections. IrishLass (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right about that, but they are often related to the article. But I can't see how those see alsos are related to the Charmed article. The Charmed ones aren't even warriors, they could be action heroes, but I don't find that relevant to the article. I mean an example of a see also that's irrelevant to the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As it is obvious you like to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, this will be my final words on this. Your opinion is that they aren't relevant, my opinion is they are. I need not justify an opinion nor will I argue just for the sake of arguing. If it were me I would also include Mythology and Wicca in the "see also" section. As it is, the show appears on the lists currently in the "see also" section which makes them relevant. I also believe it is your opinion that they aren't warriors and action heroes, of course they are. IrishLass (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we please discuss this without assuming that I only disagree for no reason? No I am not I am trying to discuss this in civil manner, I am not saying they aren't action heroes, I am saying I don't see how that see also is relevant. Stop assuming I am just here to disagree with everything, I am here to discuss, so can we please discuss in civil manner? Thank you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you couldn't get what I was asking, I'll be more specific, can you show me examples of shows that have see also sections like that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is not based on the immediate, and I am not assuming anything, it is on the overall assessment of this talk page. Regardless of civility or not, you are, in fact, arguing without really having a point. Your thoughts are "I don't like" but you've not backed why "you don't like" the list. See also section are added to link one article to another. As the show is listed on the two pages, it is relevant. Again, since I previously said I was done discussing this, I will say it again. I am done, I will not argue and I will not allow you to bait me into repeating myself when you are obviously no "hearing" what I've said in regards to the articles on the see also list. IrishLass (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
All I'm doing is to try to understand. I just want examples. I am not doing any "I don't like it" arguments, if I did I wouldn't be discussing this, I'd rather remove the see also section without discussing, which I'm not doing. I'm just trying to understand. I want examples, I will look for them. If you don't wanna discuss further, don't discuss further, I am only tying to understand. You're right that I didn't give any reasons, because I never hated the lists, it's just hard to understand how they are relevant to the see also section, if it makes you feel any better, I will just look for the examples myself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For your edification:

All along the same genre. So, yes, I did the work for you and there you have your list. Happy now? IrishLass (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the discussion is over, if I sounded like I wanted the see also section removed for no good reason, I apologize, that wasn't at all what I meant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may, the only reason the "List of women warriors..." link is there, and the See also section even exists, is because User:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer went around on or around November 3, 2007 to a massive number of articles and added it (not just to television articles, but to individual characters). There was no discussion to add it, it was just done. I don't care if it stays or goes, but to say that "all these other articles have it, so we should too" is a bit fallacious. Also Irishlass, I notice that you added those links to Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess, so it was probably not a good idea to use those as examples to support your case. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the question was asked for other articles with "see also" sections (not for articles with the same links) and they had the section, I just added the one link to an already existing section. DO NOT accuse me of deception, aka LYING, when I did not. The Xena article previously had the Hercules See Also and all the same links as the Hercules article but the section was not there this morning so I added it back but I DID NOT add the See Also section to Xena, that was there before, I added one link to it. One thing that really crosses the lines of civility is falsely accusing someone of lying/deception. I won't stand for ANYONE to call me a liar. IrishLass (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And I rather take offense at you saying I accused you of something I did not, leaving a message on my talk page to that effect. If you have a problem with a discussion here, leave the message here. I was specifically referring to the "List of women warriors..." and "List of action heroes" links which you *did* add to Xena, and you did add the entire See also section to the series article. That is all I was speaking off. I never accused you of lying, just that it probably wasn't a good idea to use those specific examples above! I don't accuse people of lying unless I am damn sure they are, and I know you aren't lying...there was nothing to lie about. Now, if there is an issue I'm not seeing, please address that, but do not make such extraordinary accusations. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, you accused me of lying. You stated I added it to win my argument which is not true. I added it to expand an already existing section. I meant what I said on your talk page, accuse me or anyone else of lying again and I will immediately report you. I notice that you added those links to Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess, so it was probably not a good idea to use those as examples to support your case. The implication being the sections didn't exist and I added the links to add the section. Not true and it could very well be that you don't realize that it came out that way but by saying I added the links you accuse me of doctoring my "argument" which is accusing me of lying to win. That's how I took it and I stand by that "reading" of what was said. I did get the Xena and Xena:WP mixed up but Xena did have a see also list. I did not create it to win my argument. IrishLass (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, okay, whatever. No, I did not accuse you of lying. If I did, I would have stated as such. You can read more into it if you wish, but usually that's not a good idea, especially when it comes to textual chat, since it is more difficult to determine the other person's state of mind. But back on topic, I simply said that using those two as examples probably wasn't the best move; I in no way said that you specifically included them to win an argument.
I'm done with this discussion, as well as this article and series. It has become far too contentious for my taste. Please resume your regularly scheduled editing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Longest running" series with female leads

Despite allegedly coming from the mouths of the cast and/or crew of Charmed, this bit of trivia is not true as the series The Facts Of Life ran for longer than Charmed at 9 years. The series' leads in TFOL were also all female. IMDB link here[2] and opening credits sequence here[3] and here [4] (beware: annoyingly catchy theme tune).Kookoo Star (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are not acceptable for various reasons. TV Guide is the original publisher of that trivia, and I'd hope they would vet it. Perhaps they are only counting adult leads, or shows within a specific genre, or something else, but that citation stands. As WP:V puts it: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not just truth, but verifiability." And supposedly fact-checked sources such as TV Guide are what we rely on. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You might "hope" that they vet it, but that does not mean they did. TV Guide is primarily a listings magazine that features interviews and articles about current television shows. It is not a TV encyclopedia and cannot be regarded as one. It is merely reiterating what Brad Kern said in his interview with them and just because he claims something does not make it true the same way that just because the magazine didn't fact check it before printing does not make it reliable. Kern might have been trying to hype Charmed or may just have been mistaken. The TV Guide article does not say that they were only counting adult female leads so you cannot assume it just to prove your point (furthermore, the Facts Of Life ensemble were all at least in their mid 20s by the time the show finished, except for Charlotte Rae and Chloris Leachman who were both about 150). The TV encyclopedia "Total Television" by Alex McNeil also lists The Facts of Life as the longest running female ensemble show at 9 seasons (which is a valid source with the ISBN number). If its a source for the actual length of TFOL series that you find questionable, then I can find plenty of them online. Concerning the issue of WP:V, the very most you could write in the article is that "in a 2006 interview with TV Guide, Brad Kern claimed the series was the longest running show with female leads" and not pass it off as a fact when there is clear evidence to the contrary. To pass it off as a fact is damaging to Wikipedia as it propagates his own error. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well written. I'll work on better wording later on. Thanks for the book source as well, I'll try to find a way to implement it. Yeah, I know sources like TV Guide and others are not always correct, but Wikipedia treats them as such until something else (preferably more recent or more "expertly" written) can prove it incorrect. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It's fine if you want to reword it to reflect what was discussed above, but the passage should be removed from the article page until this is done since it is now known to be factually inaccurate. To be absolutely honest, I dont think that this self-given accolade of "longest running show with all female leads" (plural) is particularly significant. The distinction of being the longest running female-led show (i.e. - with either a single or multiple female lead characters) would be more notable in terms of the prominence of women in television, but specifying whether a show has one or more than one female lead seems to be splitting hairs in order to justify some kind of notability (did you notice that even the TV Guide article picked up on this). It's "peacocking" basically, not to mention incorrect. In either case though, Charmed has still been outranked by Murder She Wrote, Murphy Brown, Alice, and Roseanne for female-led shows, and by The Facts Of Life for shows with all-female leads. It can even be argued that The Golden Girls lasted 8 seasons when taking into account The Golden Palace (the title of the show for its final year, whilst it was still essentially the same series). To be honest, I think its best not mentioned in the article as it just diminishes it. Kookoo Star (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I agree that it's inaccurate. And I can't see why we can't use the show facts of life itself as a source. But ah well, this issue seems to be solved anyway, just wanted to add my opinion about it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree firmly with the removal of this information. The source of the record-breaking doesn't appear randomly from the mouths of cast and crew but, as confirmed in an offical press release from Spelling Television Inc., from the Museum of Television and Radio. [5]. Wikipedia's policy of reporting information based on sources is being rejected here for original research as we are going against the reports of Spelling Television, The Museum of Television and Radio and the media (including Entertainment Weekly [6]; TVGuide [7]; Titan Magazines and the Official Charmed Magazine [8]; TV Series Finale [9]; DVD Verdict [10]; amongst many more online sources). Furthermore, checking the IMDB link provided above, I was able to see that TFOL ran for just under 75 episodes, whereas Charmed ran for 178. Therefore, Charmed has been on air with fresh episodes for a longer time than TFOL, making it the longest running series in terms of number of episodes (not number of years). As such, Charmed is indeed the longest running series with female leads as it was on air for a LONGER run of individual episodes. Essentially, 178 episodes with an all female cast is "longer" (more hours on air) than 75 episodes with an all female cast. Olympic (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but what I don't understand is what do you mean facts of life has seventy five episodes? According to this article it has few more than 200, mind explaining what you meant there? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm mainly asking because I don't know anything about Facts of Life, and it looks like on that article I pointed it has few more than 200. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bring that to my attention; I hadn't check the wikipedia article. My source, as I mentioned above, was the IMDB link which claims that the show's longest-runnng actress lasted for "74 episodes, 1979-1988". I presumed that this was correct. Is there any offical confirmation on the episodic length of the series? Additionally, as a side note, could the Museum of Television and Radio have considered John Lawlor as Steven Bradley (1979-1980), a main lead? Olympic (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked a fansite for The Facts of Life where it claims that "209 total syndicated half-hour episodes" were aired. This therefore means that although there are 209 half-hour episodes (including commerical breaks), this would be relative to 104.5 one hour long episodes. As such, Charmed's 178 hour long episodes (or roughly 356 half-hours on air) out-lengthens TFOL in number of hours on air. This is most likely the criteria the Museum of Television and Radio is looking at: the number of hours airing on television. Olympic (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think longest-running means how many hours or episodes in total. Would you say that Pokémon is a longer running animation than The Simpsons just because it has more episodes? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the "original series" (excluding spin-off type material) only had around 270 episodes, whereas The Simpsons is currently over 400. Still, I think that the record still applies to Charmed, we (as Wikipedia article writers) can't simply disagree with what has frequently been reported by numerous sources and pass it off as wrong. Surely that's original research and against Wikipedia's policies, right? Whatever the reason (such as whether the record apply to number of episodes, or whether it only includes hour-long dramas only and not sitcoms), the fact of its recognision in the media should be documented in the article. Olympic (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it isn't original research if we prove an official source wrong with another official source, is it? I know nobody has so far, just making a suggestion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to restart a debate again, but I thought I'd point out something from the TV Guide interview with Brad Kern [11] in which he is quoted as saying:

I guess the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences contacted Paramount to alert us to the fact that we had surpassed the longest-running hour featuring female leads, and the only milestone left [to surpass] was the longest-running half-hour, Laverne and Shirley.

He specifically notes that the milestone applies only to hour-long series' and, despite what TV Guide claimed, the record does not mean that Charmed surpassed Laverne and Shirley as they are in two different categories. Similarly, The Facts of Life would also not fall into the same hour-long category and so this particular record would not apply to that show. I think information regarding the record should be reinstated onto the article with emphasis on it applying to hour-long series' only. Olympic (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville

The show was the longest lasting of its generation of supernatural-themed shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Roswell.

I am wondering should I add Smallville there as well? As far as I know it is a supernatural-themed show, and it is very well known one. Yes, I know that not all supernatural shows can be in the second paragraph of the article, what I'm asking is, is Smallville notable enough? Well, it is still running, and it is indeed very well known. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

TheBlazikenMaster, you've raised an interesting question, one that I've thought about before. The term "last in its generation" (or thereabouts) is quite vague and subjective. Smallville, and even Supernatural, are two well known supernatural series' which have outlived Charmed's run. Not to mention the newst surge in paranormal shows from Medium and Ghost Whisperer to The 4400 and, even, Heroes. Where do you draw the line at Charmed's "generation"? Does it consist of only magic and monsters and not the superhero sub-genre that Smallville is part of? It is a good point, however, and one to be made, that whilst Charmed did air alongside Buffy and Angel, it did also outlive them (despite differences in critical reaction). We could have something like: The series was the longest lasting of many supernatural themed dramas (such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Roswell) all of which finished airing during Charmed's eight year run on U.S. television. Olympic (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Past Lives.

one the pages of the characters, it lists the names of the charmed past lives as their current ones (ie Prudence Bowen instead of P. Bowen). When were their full names of their past lives confirmed? 66.245.65.88 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Never, as far as I know. Not even any of the novels or companion guides gave theoretical first names. It should, therefore, be reverted back to P. Bowen and so on. What page is this happening on? Olympic (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed The Movie

It has been rumored that their will be a charmed movie. It's yet to be confinmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.205.55 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dude, rumors have no place on Wikipedia. That's because Wikipedia is for facts, if we allowed rumors and speculations to be on Wikipedia there would be WAY too many speculations, and nearly nothing that's a fact, I hope you get my point. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melinda - Piper's daughter

Everytime you click "Melinda Halliwell" it directs you to "Piper and Leo's children" whereas if you click on Wyatt and Chris, they have a page on their own. I have enough stuff to make a page for Melinda Halliwell. I'm a family friend of the actress portraying Melinda (Kathleen Teresa Scott). Furthermore I have their permission to add information and pictures on wikipedia. They have emailed me pictures for use on here. I'm the one who started Kathleen Teresa Scott. I've started the danish page for Melinda Halliwell aswell. Date: June 5th, 2008 Time: 5:54p.m.

That's great. Just remember the rule about original research, don't go adding information you get directly from them that can't be verified with some other source.--Angelastic (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)