Talk:Charmed/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers the discussions begun between approximately July 2006 and August 2006.

2006 July

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.

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.~~ —Mi ra 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just followed my own advice; redirect created. —Mi ra 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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. —Mi ra 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). —Mi ra 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there some kind of source (preferably official) where one could look this up? —Mi ra 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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? —Mi ra 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. —'Mi ra 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)

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. —Mi ra 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. —Mi ra 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)

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

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

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 and .

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:

The last scenes are a general review of the future, not nitpicks.
The last scenes provide a look at the three families structured around three locations.
The lunchbox scene's narration does not fit the argument always brought up to edit the pages.
The third child in the lunchbox scene does not match any of the two children babysat by Billie.
The often quoted premonitions are not the set future.
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)

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, Mi ra, 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.

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. —Mi ra 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 Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:57, 18 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 extreme~~ly 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!

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:

Book_of_Shadows_(Charmed)
Orb_(Charmed) (of course) think this should be Orbing :)
List_of_Charmed_family_and_friends

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)

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)

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)

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. —Mi ra 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)

Darklighter arrow

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

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. ~Zythe^{Talk 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. ~Zythe^{Talk 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)

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. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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. —Mi ra 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

2006 August

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)

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? ~Zythe^{Talk 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? ~Zythe^{Talk 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. ~Zythe^{Talk 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. ~Zythe^{Talk 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)

Categories: Talk archives