Talk:Charmed/Archive 2

message: Many people have posted that a boy named Matthew, as seen in the flash-forwards, is Piper's and Leo's grandson. However, I very much doubt this and, thus, think that an edit of any mention of the Halliwell's being related to him. Here's why:
In Leo's lesson, it appoears as though he is encouraging all his students to tele-orb the book, as all the students put their hands up. He only happened to chose that boy, Matthew, at random. So, if you believe that Matthew must be related to them because he can tele-orb, I find that very unlikely. Leo himself said "Who would like to try it first?", therefore they could all tele-orb.
Furthermore, considering that Leo is going grey in that scene, Matthew would be too young to be his son (if anyone was thinking that), but considering that he was nearly the same age as Piper's and Leo's granddaughter (with telekinesis) when Piper and Leo were very, very old, then Matthew would, at that time, be nearly 20 and far too old to be their grandson. If you do the Maths, their is absolutely no way Matthew can be their grandson.
::In the script it said he was their oldest grandson. Zythe 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matthew

message: As it is mentioned in the Feature article nomination page, the Syndication section takes up too much of the article. I've started to put it in a table format but my browser closed halfway and I am now frustrated so I won't start over, but instead share my three proposed formats, with a few examples:
Country  	Channels airing (seasons aired)    	Comments
Argentina	Sony Entertainment Television (1-7)	Subtitled; new episodes air primetime, reruns shown on weekdays.
Australia	Channel 10 (1-7), TV1 (1-4)        	Season 8 purchased, not yet aired.
...      	                                   	
Hungary  	TV2 (1-7)                          	Dubbed; reruns air weekly. Title is Bűbájos boszorkák (Charming witches)
Etc.     	                                   	
Or, alternatively, one with a column set aside for title changes, as there are many.
Country  	Channels airing (seasons aired)    	Title change                        	Comments
Argentina	Sony Entertainment Television (1-7)	                                    	Subtitled; new episodes air primetime, reruns shown on weekdays.
Australia	Channel 10 (1-7), TV1 (1-4)        	                                    	Season 8 purchased, not yet aired.
...      	                                   	                                    	
Hungary  	TV2 (1-7)                          	Bűbájos boszorkák (Charming witches)	Dubbed; reruns air weekly.
Etc.     	                                   	                                    	
Or we could also put all the language stuff into one column, I think that makes it more structured.
Country  	Channels airing (seasons aired)    	Language                                                                	Comments
Argentina	Sony Entertainment Television (1-7)	English with subtitles                                                  	New episodes air primetime, reruns shown on weekdays.
Australia	Channel 10 (1-7), TV1 (1-4)        	English                                                                 	Season 8 purchased, not yet aired.
...      	                                   	                                                                        	
Hungary  	TV2 (1-7)                          	Dubbed in Hungarian, with the title Bűbájos boszorkák (Charming witches)	Reruns of Season 3 air weekly.
Etc.     	                                   	                                                                        	
I personally like the third version. If you like the idea, pick one and then we can continue from there. AdamDobay 07:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fantastic idea, however, it is difficult to choose which option is the best.  I like #1 because of it's simplicity and total flexibility.  #2 seems overindulgent, since an alt title can more easily be stuck in the notes section.  #3 would normally be the best choice, but right now we have little definite data on which broadcasters use what.  At this juncture, I'll nominate #1, and begin work (in my namespace, not in the article) this evening.  When finished, I'll post the link and invite comment.     --   Huntster (Talk • Contribs • Email) 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, first test run is finished (User:Huntster/WS/Charmed).  Give me some feedback on this layout, let me know of changes that need to be made, and I'll complete it.     --   Huntster (Talk • Contribs • Email) 03:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #3 looks brilliant. It's simple, to the point and has information in a relevant and easy-to-read format. Furthermore, the layout is also great - simple and to-the-point. Great idea! --Danny DeSio 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Syndication

message: After noting the objections given on the Featured Article page, it seems a good idea might be to move the non-show related material to a Page Two.  This P2 would include all Syndication and DVD data (oh, and lets be cheesy and have a P3 that's only about the club...ahem, nm).  Result would be a cleaner Page One that would focus entirely on the series itself, thus beginning to satisfy the objections listed.     --   Huntster (Talk • Contribs • Email) 03:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something vaguely like this, perhaps? —Mira 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's generally what I was thinking of, though our work to create tables for this data looks better than raw text, imo.  Also, my thoughts were that at the top of each page, there would be a link series, something like Page 1 | Page 2 .  I know I recently saw an article with such a setup, so I'll attempt to find it again.  Shall we get some concensus on this idea then?  I admit I'm new'ish, so don't know if there are procedures for creating new pages in articles....    --   Huntster (Talk • Contribs • Email) 02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article could just be created, if there's a problem/objection it can always be merged back in. However, I would use Template:Main rather than a "page one, page two" format. —Mira 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just went ahead and copied the stuff over. The new article is Charmed broadcasters and DVD releases. If someone can think up a better title, go ahead and move it. —Mira 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this way there is a chance for an AfD on that article. :/ AdamDobay 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While possible, wouldn't WP:SIZE indicate that this would be acceptable, given that total file size had grown to appx 35kB?  Not to mention the various calls given at the FAC subpage to clean up the main article of extraneous material.  The main page should be limited to information directly pertaining to the show...characters, actors, plotlines, etc; and other data can go on this page.  However, I'm still wondering if a subpage wouldn't be safer than an entirely new article, aka "Charmed/Multimedia"  (btw, still looking for feedback on the broadcasters table...see section above :)     --   Huntster (Talk • Contribs • Email) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpages are actually not allowed (see WP:SP). And I think this page should be safe enough from AFD, the West Wing version doesn't appear to have ever been brought there. —Mira 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, I suppose I managed to skip that section when reading that page before.  Thanks for pointing that out.  Explains why I can no longer find the page I was originally thinking of...probably was remade.  Also, would IMDB be a reasonable source (noticed your 'fact' insertion as for when the girls became producers, and found on IMDB a date of 2002 as being when they were made such).    — Huntster «Talk • Contribs • Email» 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually meant to put the  where the article is discussing the reasons why they were made producers. I'll move that to a better spot. However, I don't think sourcing the other part is a bad thing. Please go ahead and add the reference. —Mira 04:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: Producers - I just read an interview with either Brad Kern or one of the actors, that stated the girls had become producers as part of their 5th season contract. In other words, after starring in the show for 5 seasons, they automatically became producers. And although being a producer didn't garner them any additional money, they did get allot more say on certain things.  Damned if I can't find it now!! --Joe Christl 18:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone working in the film and television industry, I have to correct you on that Z-vap. With a show like this you renew your contract every year until it expires (which it did after eight years). Every year you may apply changes to your contract in details like how much money you get for an episode, etc. This is where it was included that Holly and Alyssa will become producers, AFTER being asked to be producers. In Hollywood (nor any other film industry), you don't just become a producer by yourself, as that involves a lot of work you may not be qualified for. AdamDobay 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't clear earlier.  I believe what the intent of the speaker was trying to say, in the article, is once they've starred in their 5th season with the show, they were offered producer status.  It was a mistake on my part in typing "automatically became producers".  Mind you, within the article, this is just ten or so words strung into one sentence. But it IS how I interpreted the statement.  I also figured it was the practice the WB took with the Charmed set, but who knows. --Joe Christl 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, I wasn't aware that was actually in the article already. But what I don't get is why is that in the middle of "Billing Order". It's perfectly unrelated. I do not know where to fit that in the current article, though, either. AdamDobay 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I ammended the produer part after reading the rumor mill that someone tossed in there, but later thought to myself that the Producer stuff didn't really fit in the "Billing Order" category at all.  It probably should be moved somewhere else; perhaps when we get around to restructuring the page somewhat (possibly with pages branching off of the main one, ala Alias, using  tags and summaries) --Joe Christl 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration for a Page Two 

message: This article has been listed at AFD. Please join the discussion. —Mira 00:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone moved it to June 27th's list.  Link edited.   ···Q  Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of the Charmed Ones deaths]] AFD

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Character infos: Not short and not character descriptions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Minor demon. He's not really important. AdamDobay 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's in the List of Charmed evil beings; redirect his page there. —Mira 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just followed my own advice; redirect created. —Mira 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumain Article 

message: There is a question as to whether articles such as The Hollow (Charmed) and The Nexus (Charmed) should include the word "The" in their titles. The appropriate policy is here. Basically, if "the" would be capitalized in normal writing, then it should be in the title. If it isn't normally capitalized, then it shouldn't be in the title. —Mira 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, the nexus article has been moved back to Nexus (Charmed). —Mira 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: These pages duplicate each other in large part, and I think they should be merged. I'm not completely certain which one should be kept, though. Thoughts? —Mira 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Telekinetic orbing]] & [[Orb (Charmed)]]

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted the recent changes, because the top image was unsourced, and the lower one was just unecessary. —Mira 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Personally, I like the first one better, but they're both pretty good. —Mira 04:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the first one as well, as that is a pure, logo & title picture. AdamDobay 08:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks great. I've added a little comment notice, should it help. AdamDobay 18:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff guys.  I really like the new logo.  :)  Hopefully things will calm down now.  --Joe Christl 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture at the top of the page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Situation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hell, speedy delete would be good. Zythe 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sarpedon (Charmed)]] 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Heh, I think it's important especially for Ellen Greer and Gordon Wells who were Piper and Leo in the end. I also feel it's notable because these actors portrayed the characters which is really all the field asks for. They're not given first bill and I asterixed their episodes with the intent of making sure nobody thought they were perhaps recurring across the series. It's different to a body swap episode (ie. Eliza Dushku is listed in the same spot for Buffy Summers, just as Sarah Michelle Gellar is listed as having been a portrayer of Faith Lehane). I don't see why they shouldn't be in that spot, they are the character, they represent what the actor is supposed to look like in X years. ~ZytheTalk to me! 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayed by 

message: If Piper had another child, she would have mentioned having another child. She mentioned her restaurant, Leo teaching, her kids taking over, but no daughter. There were no pictures of a girl on the wall with Piper's sons (and why would she only have a picture of two of her kids but not include all her children in the photo?), Chris and Wyatt were the only ones shown when she mentioned her kids taking over. Everything points to Piper only having two children. People are fanwanking trying to make others believe that some shot of a girl in that one scene was her daughter when nothing backs that up and everything else shown points to Piper and Leo only having two children. There is no proof that the girl in that scene is Piper and Leo's daughter and nothing to back it up. There is more than suggests Piper and Leo only had two children. People that watched the finale that did not read spoilers thought the little girl was Phoebe's. Since Phoebe was seen picking up Piper and Leo's kids in Witchness Protection along with her own daughter--who was played by the same girl that appeared in that scene--and Piper was saying "Phoebe's kids" as she handed the girl the lunchbox, it appears that was indeed supposed to be Phoebe's daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 22:28, July 30, 2006  (UTC)
:This has been covered many times before, most recently in the "Final decision..." section of this talk page. —Mira 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piper's Children Debate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[The Charmed Sons]] nominated for deletion