Talk:Charmed/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This archive covers the discussions begun between approximately September 2006 and February 2008.

2006 September

Mistake

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

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

Kaley Cuoco

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

Personally, I think only multiple season cast should count. No Andy, Billie, Chris, Dan or Jenny. Only Prue, Piper, Phoebe, Paige, Leo, Cole and Daryll.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, only the recurring characters should be listed. Malevious
I disagree. I think that Dan's, Billie's and Chris's plots were substantial enough to warrant 'starring'. Afterall, the opening credits listed them as such. Syri 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Syri
Chris was in 4 seasons, he was in Oh my goddesss, All of Season 6, an episode in season 7 and Forever charmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.95.3 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Very true; however, his season 5, 7 and 8 appearances lised him as "guest star". Season six listed him as "starring" 70.130.46.129 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Syri
Kaley Cuoco may have only been in one season, but the finale of the whole series was pretty much based on her turning evil! I think Billie pretty much made season 8! I think she should be listed as starring. P:S- unrelated, but I think s8 was a bit of a let down. Apart from the finale... WHICH WAS GREAT!!!! Bubble bunny
Billie was only in season 8, if Chirs, who was in 4seasons(even if some where just guest starring in one ep) doesn't get listed in no way should Billie get listed. Also, you personal opinion on Billie isn't a reason to list her. I personally think she sucked and should never have been brought in. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay! Now BREATH already!!! I wasn't talking about my personal opinion of Billie, I was talking about how alot of the Season 8 storylines revolved around her! Bubble bunny
Yes it did, just as previous seasons revolved around the source, the avatars and zankou but none of them are listed. Just because a single season revolved around her doesn't make her important. The source was in like 3 seasons or something and he killed off a charmed one but he doesnt get listed so why should billie when she couldn't even decide if she was good or evil. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I've just come back to this after eight months and it seems people have some very stong opinions on this. I had no idea it would be such a contentious point! Think outside the box 10:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2006 October

Navigational Box

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

TJ 08:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

-->Comparison Navigational Boxes <--

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

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

awards for charmed

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

Template

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

2006 November

Grandmama

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

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

Powers of Paige's Kids and Piper's Girl

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

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

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

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

DVDs, music, and TV, oh my!

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

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

2006 December

"Notable occurrences"

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

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

Merge

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

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

Melinda Halliwell IS Piper's Daughter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive family

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

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

Unecessary?

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

Notable family in Infoboxes

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

Interesting note I found in the infobox.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthdates of the Charmed Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to settle on birth dates in this show is nearly impossible, what with writers altering ages and ignoring continuity constantly.--Gonzalo84 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC) This archive covers the discussions begun between approximately January 2007 and May 2007.

2007 January

Books

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

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

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

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

Second Templete

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

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

Wikiproject

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

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

Some mention on how Wiccans take the tv series?

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

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

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

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

Family Trees

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

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

Piper and leo's third Child is called Melinda.

Penny JohnsonAllen Halliwell
Victor BennetPatty HalliwellSam Wilder
Prue HalliwellPaige MatthewsHenry Mitchell
Phoebe HalliwellCoop
Leo WyattPiper Halliwell
Wyatt Matthew HalliwellChristopher Perry Halliwell
Penelope JohnsonAllen Halliwell
Patricia HalliwellVictor Bennet
Prudence "Prue" Halliwell
Piper HalliwellLeo Wyatt
Wyatt Matthew Halliwell
Christopher Perry Halliwell
Unnamed Daughter
Phoebe HalliwellCoop
Unnamed Daughter
Unnamed Daughter
Unnamed Daughter
Samuel Wilder
Paige MatthewsHenry Mitchell
Unnamed Daughter
Unnamed Daughter
Henry Jr.

Guest Stars

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

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

Charmed season summaries

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

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

2007 February

Charmed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads up

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

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

2007 March

Good article?

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

Hrmm seems pretty good. Maybe put it up for review and see if anyone notices something we haven't. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 April

Timeframe?

Also, the time frame of Victor Bennett leaving his wife, the girls' mother, was changed occasionally throughout the series.

I've seen several articles which suggest there is no clear evidence the time frame change. Rather, it's possibility Victor left his wife not long after the scene in Forever Charmed (finale) since one of the other episodes had them seperate not long after that. Then it appears he may have reconciled temporarily for Christmas but split up again later. Unless there are irreconciable differences, I don't think we can say the time frame changed Nil Einne 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Commas

The software automatically adds commas as the wiki dates are linked/wikified and rendered from the default settings, this does not mean they should not be included... indeed they should, as per the MoS. Not including them means that forks of this article will also not include commas. Matthew 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to show me where it says we should have commas. I don't remember seeing anything in MoS about using them. And whats the point of having the software add them if they still want us to type them in? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think you need to take a refresher course at the WP:MOS for dates where is clearly states "Adding a comma between month/day and year is unnecessary, as it has no effect on what is seen". So your entire argument is null :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually that was a recently added (non-discussed) edit.[1] It seem like a possible contentious change. "add [sic] them if they still want us to type them in": the software does this automatically to wikified dates, anybody who forks this article and does not use MediaWiki will have bad dates, not to mention dates should be correct... regardless if the software fixes editor sloppiness. Matthew 01:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The edit was made by an admin who has more authority on the matter than you do. End of story. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who made the edit, nobody has "more authority", you obviously misunderstand the concept of what an admins role is. EOF. Matthew 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No sense arguing about it here, just leave a message on that MoS talk page and see if that addition is considered policy or just a rogue edit. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 May

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

There is a discussion going on over at the LOE over the redirection of the articles. Just a note to inform all the editors that this will effect. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 July

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)

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)

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)

2007 August

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)

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)

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)

2007 September

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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". {{cite news}}: Text "http://www.chez.com/fbibler/tvstats/recent_data/1999-00.html" ignored (help)
  3. ^ "TV Ratings 2000-2001". {{cite news}}: Text "http://www.chez.com/fbibler/tvstats/recent_data/2000-01.html" ignored (help)
  4. ^ "How did your favorite show rate? (2001-02)". USA Today. 2002-05-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  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. {{cite news}}: Text "publisher" ignored (help)
  • 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)

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)

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 (11 episodes)
Victor Bennett 1) Tony Denison (misbilled as "Victor Halliwell") Season 1 (1 episode)
2) 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)
  1. ^ Charmed at IMDb
  2. ^ Charmed at IMDb
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charmed/Archive_3&oldid=1142374896"