Talk:Charmed/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: I'd advise some of the editors who have worked to increase the quality of Charmed articles help to monitor  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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2006 November 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grandmama 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Powers of Paige's Kids and Piper's Girl 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DVDs, music, and TV, oh my! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Notable occurrences" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You're welcome.  Thanks for the quick action, and I concur with the speedy-deletion.  :) --Elonka 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Melinda Halliwell IS Piper's Daughter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive family 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unecessary? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Birthdates of the Charmed Family 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Books 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Some mention on how Wiccans take the tv series? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Family Trees 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Guest Stars 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Charmed season summaries 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. Well I'm glad that I wasn't seeing things. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 February 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Charmed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. Well I'm glad that I wasn't seeing things. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up 

message: === Good article? ===
Should we apply or is it not that good? ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2007 March 

message: Should we apply or is it not that good? ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Actually that was a recently added (non-discussed) edit. It seem like a possible contentious change. "add 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2007 April 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Timeframe? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Actually that was a recently added (non-discussed) edit. It seem like a possible contentious change. "add 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Commas 

message: === New noticeboard ===
A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2007 May 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Episodes 

message: 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:
* BauerFanatic87
* Lakerfanantic87
* Batmania1987
* Borat87
* Brainer2.0	
* BauerRner87 (SPaPP&EVSS)
* BenRnerBouer87 (EVSS&PCS)
* Despardo87.2 (EVTSS&PPSP))
-- RHaworth 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Charmed / Halliwell vandal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Charmed 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ok it was just an idea i had, oh well.--Mhart54com 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  2007 August 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ok it was just an idea i had, oh well.--Mhart54com 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme song 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Former Members of the Charmed Ones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lists of good / evil beings in Charmed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup : Merge and Redirects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So I would assume that this closes the topic? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Billie Jenkins

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's not exactly true.  Looking at his IMDB profile  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well since you personally don't trust IMDB, here's his site: Robert Masello.KellyAna (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in the Charmed universe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ratings? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Episode listings 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Thank you so much, IrishLass! I've added the table to the page. Danny (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *"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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: U.S. Ratings