Talk:List of Charmed family and friends

Information from The Charmed Family (Halliwell)

This was a deadend page that nobody even knew about (it wasn't link from anywhere, or in any categories) that was recently deleted as useless. I just wanted to preserve the information here, incase any of it's useful. Most of it is duplicate of what's already in this article, but when somebody gets a few minutes (I might myself if I get a chance) we'll have to go through and review it, to make sure it's all covered. --Maelwys 15:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old article

The Charmed Ones family started all the way back in the 1600's with Charlotte Warren who was born in 1644.

While heavily pregnant with her unborn child (Melinda Warren) she was kidnapped by the Dark practitioner Ruth Cobb who hoped to raise the child evil. If Charlotte's child were to be raised evil then good magic would never flourish in the new world. Luckily for Charlotte the Charmed Ones had been sent back in time to help her and they did manage to rescue Charlotte and her child and they even helped to help her give birth to her daughter Melinda Warren.

Melinda Warren was born on the 31st October 1670 and grew to become a powerful good witch who had all three of the Charmed powers which were Telekinesis, Temporal stasis and Premonitions. Some time in the 1600's Melinda was imprisioned in a chamber by an evil Warlock named Matthew Tate. She sought revenge on Tate for stealing her love. She did this by casting a spell on Matthew to trap him inside a locket (Matthew Tate could only be released by one of Melinda's relatives). Melinda later had a daughter in 1695 but was then burned at the stake two years later. In 1998 one of Melinda's relatives (Prue Halliwell) accidently released Matthew Tate from the locket that Melinda had locked him in hundreds of years before. Melinda was then summoned from the past and to help the Charmed Ones lock Matthew back in the locket where he belonged.

1920s cousins

Can anybody cite a source that states that the 3 cousins in the 1920s were named Phoebe, Prue, and Piper? I don't recall them ever being named, we only know that their first initials are all P, and that they were the past lives of the Phoebe, Prue, and Piper that we know, but I don't think that necessarily implies having the same name. --Maelwys 13:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 1920s Cousins (and Other Family)

The following information has been changed. Wikipedia is not a place to post fan-fiction regarding the Warren line. Never was it mentioned that the cousins first names were Prue, Piper and Phoebe, or that Phoebe was the daughter of P.Baxter (it hardly makes sense, anyway, for P.Baxter to name her child after the woman she murdered - as according to the previously posted spam artical). Furthermore, information regarding who Aunt Pearl and Great-Aunt Phoebe were can't just be deleted because the fact that they could be the cousins' first names doesn't appeal to you; nor the fact that Sylvia could be a witch and not on the Bennett side of the family.--[[User:]]19:26, 20 April 2006

No, the three cousins were P, P and P. There is a reference to an Aunt Pearl in one episode but nothing is revealed about the three cousins apart from the P so I think that whole section should be stripped from all the speculation. AdamDobay 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speculation should remain. We will never discover the names of the cousins, nor how Pearl, Phoebe and Sylvia are actually related to the sisters, however, it is worth commenting on how they could be one of the samee, which they very well could. 19:39, 20 April 2006

I certainly feel that the 1920s cousins should not fall under the Warren Line of Witches heading. They are too far removed. Otherwise all of the witches should be considered Warren witches, and not Halliwell witches, etc.

Well in the episode P.Russel was actually called 'evil phoebe' Harmless 77 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close family

I think Melinda (Piper's non-daughter) should be merged into this section. She was a minor character that appeared in one brief scene of one episode, and then didn't even end up truly existing, so I don't think there's any reason she really needs her own article. A footnote on Pipers page, or a quick description on the family page should be more than sufficient. --Maelwys 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As she was never born she has no real place in the family. Instead she should have her own page where her alternate reality is explained. 18:16 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympic god (talk • contribs)

Well, I agree that she doesn't really have a place in the family either, I was just looking for somewhere else to put her since I think she certainly doesn't deserve her own page. So barring the family page, I'd suggest that her page simply get deleted and her information could be contained in the episode page for the 1 episode she (briefly) appeared in, and mentioned on Piper's bio, and that should be more than enough. --Maelwys 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, leave her where she is. There is no point as she is an important figure, which does not fuse with other aspects of charmed. User: Janice

My problem is with the statement "she is an important figure". She was on screen for a very small portion of 1 episode, on a show that's created hundreds of hours of TV. --Maelwys 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but she influenced many of the Characters. She has been referenced many times. In All Halliwell's Eve, Prue and Phoebe told Piper that she must deliver Melinda Warren as they knew she would be a mother. In seasons 4 and 5 "Prudence Melinda Warren" was referenced to being born soon and that she would be the unborn foetus. There are also many other times during seasons two and three.

Deletion may be a good idea, or at least, change the article into a discussion of the two Melinda Halliwells: The one who ceased to exist, and Piper's third child from the final episode. Zythe 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bennet(t)

Please see Talk:Charmed#Victor Bennet(t) for a current discussion on the correct spelling of this character's name. --Maelwys 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Books not included"

I'm wondering about the beginnning of the article which currently says characters from the books are not included because they are not canon. But most of the information for Prudence Warren *is* from the books. Should we delete that? Those books are not canon, either. Just wondering. AdamDobay 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know there were Charmed books, to be honest. I almost reverted the statement when it was added, and if it's inaccurate, that's an even better reason to remove it. —MiraLuka 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I got rid of the Prue Warren information since it's from the books. The books do nothing but contradict the series. They don't count. They intoruduce relatives that can't exist, create random powers, and get names wrong... a lot.

Yes, they certainly do. One of the books I had called Cole Turner "Cole Porter" and that was really dumb. So I sure wouldn't go so far as to call the books canon, if they can mess up the name of a major supporting character.

Henry_Mitchell_(Charmed) article

Why is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mitchell_(Charmed) redirected back here? Is it because there's not enough information to fill an article (yet)? --Joe Christl 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No yet, there will never be enough information. The character is simply not developed beyond "Paige's husband". Zythe 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Piper Halliwell and Leo Wyatt

OK I've combined both versions of the Melinda controversy, into one article. I've removed the statements regarding the "Official Chamred Magazine" as the publisher, Titan Subscription Magazines, is not related to the television producers. Until there's been further word from Brad Kern or another person connected to the show, please let the madness stop! --Joe Christl 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see 2006 June discussions on Talk:Charmed --Joe Christl 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to resolve the edit war-like activity over the third child/not third child debate, I have posted a summary of the arguments and counterarguments about the issue, concluding that the arguments for the child not being Phoebe's daughter seriously outweigh the arguments for the child being Phoebe's daughter. See Talk:Charmed for details. AdamDobay 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree - just a note

Just a note to the male people on the tree thing. A friend of mine has reconstructed the full family tree a while back, from the DVD of 2.14, and there is a contradiction of the female heritage claim three times, first a few generation after Melinda Warren there are two male Williamsons, then when a Warren person comes in again, a male M. Warren, a Randall Warren, and a Clarence warren (indicated as male). Finally, in the Bowen family, before the three cousins, the line is carried by two male Bowens, again. So actually in the Warren line, there are many men. I would say that it's really Penny's hatred for men that fuels the Wyatt-shouldn't-have-been-a-boy thing. AdamDobay 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, however, the family tree shown in "Pardon My Past" has way too many errors in the parts we know as fact, for the rest of it to be taken as cannon. Obviously, the prop department simply made a quick tree thats only use was to show the cousins facts, and not the whole Warren line. Instances of errors inlcude: Prue (not Prudence), Victor Jones, Jack Halliwell, Dates...(won't even go into it), Melinda being in the wrong generation (than the one stated in "The Witch is Back"), Brianna being in the wrong generation (than as was stated in "Which Prue is it, Anyway?"), Melinda having TWO children, so on... --Danny DeSio 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think they just needed someone to hammer out a page to look like a family tree, so they could do the episode. I don't think the Producers ever meant for it to be studied. I mean, lets be honest here, Brian Kern is no Joss Whedon. --Joe Christl 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Kern. :) Having looked over all the production involved in the series, it seems quite clear that he had the system in his mind (the episodes he is directly involved in don't seem to have all the continuity and other mistakes many episodes do), it's just that he couldn't keep a firm grip on it when it ran down to the smallest people. Especially the prop department, they seem like they weren't given firm enough instructions. See the "structure of the world" chart Leo teaches to Billie in Season 8, it has demons, elders and warlocks and darklighters scattered randomly around a pie-chart with types of creatures (?) not even mentioned in the show and not making sense altogether. It is wrong to scold the exec producer for everything, you can't imagine how much work it is to coordinate hundreds of people working in the staff (and to account for all the budget cuts the WB gave them). It's teamwork, and there are weak links in there. It's not all the producer's fault every time. AdamDobay 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aughhh!!! I knew it was wrong when I was typing it! But I had an appointment with 'alkie' that clouded my mind. As far as scolding Brad, its more of a "who gets blamed first" kind of thing. He's also responsible for the show lasting 8 seasons, I feel. :) --Joe Christl 01:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Adam has said, the prop department, at times, have really failed Charmed. For instance, Phoebe, during Season 8, glanced down at a document that had her signature spelling her name as "Pheobe Halliwell". Not to mention all the times that Victor's surname has gone utterly crazy. From Victor Halliwell, to Jones, to Bennett and then the prop department (in Season 8) claiming it to be Bennet (something that we changed on Wikipedia, that I don't agree with!). Danny DeSio 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bennett?? Why isn't it Victor Halliwell? Where's the reasoning behind 'Bennett'? --Joe Christl 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Bennett? I believe it has been said that women don't take the husband's name in the Halliwell line, so just because the father is named Bennett, doesn't mean his daughters must have the same name. Or, if by some chance he took the name Halliwell after he married Patty, he could have reverted to Bennett after they were divorced/she died. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Tree

I have made a family tree for us to use. It is drawn-up into Wyatt's perspective.

P. Baxter

Gordon Johnson

Unknown

Unknown Halliwell

Unknown

Unknown Bennett

Unknown

Unknown Wyatt

Penelope Johnson

Allen Halliwell

Unknown

Unknown Bennett

Unknown

Unknown Wyatt

Patricia Halliwell

Victor Bennett

Unknown

Christopher Wyatt

Piper Halliwell

Leo Wyatt

Wyatt Matthew Halliwell

Shall we use it on the main page? --Danny DeSio 10:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have also produced this one:

Danny DeSio 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one over the other one. Good stuff. --Joe Christl 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is quite large. Is it possible to Thumb it, and have it made a bit smaller? Not sure how it should fit nicely. --Joe Christl 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While interesting, I do think it should be table-fied, aka, presented in text format. I remember someone created a wikitable of the family tree some time back, but i don't remember which talk page it was on. My reasoning, is that it is somewhat plain, and as it was formatted as a JPG instead of a GIF or PNG file, there is a lot of artifacting. In any case, if I come across (or am able to make) a text version, perhaps that would fit better. Eh? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think it's really bad, sorry! We don;t know Brianna had sisters, we don't know Brianna was P. Bowen's mother and there's the discrepency through which the cousins' parents are Charmed Ones, meaning they cant be true cousins. Your best bet it is to go Brianna - line down - question marks - line down - The Cousins - line down from P. Baxter - Grams - etc. Also, shouldn't it be made in something nicer like Photoshop or Family Tree Maker? The article's file size is way too big anyway though... Zythe 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zythe. There are several things wrong with the family tree, based on the original family tree as seen in the show (which, even if there are minor errors in it, has to be considered canon).

Problem #1: Prudence Warren's line stops after two kids of Prudence. The Warren line is taken on by another branch of the family.

Problem #2: Between Melinda Warren and the three cousins there are thirteen generations, not four.

Problem #3: Brianna Warren and P. Bowen are not directly related. There are exactly ten generations between Melinda Warren and Brianna Warren, and a further three between Brianna Warren and P. Bowen.

The Warren line is altogether 20 generations long. I'm quite sure that a full family tree is completely unnecessary. I'm also sure that a shorter, crippled family tree is also unneeded, as it is not something that is necessary to understand what this show is about. I believe that this article is already too long, with entries like that of Prudence and Beatrice Warren, which have not received more than one mention each in the series. The Other Family section also contains a lot of suppositions and one-time mentions (Janice, Hubert, Milton, Clarence, etc.) that barely classify as notable. AdamDobay 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zythe is right, it does need to be in a nicer format. I would start making one on photoshop, but I'm travelling abroad soon, which doesn't leave me much time. Anyone who would like to contribute - please do!

However, I must disagree with everything Adam has posted. We have already decided that the family tree from "Pardon My Past" and "Baby's First Demon" is uncannon. Furthermore, everything on my family tree (generation-wise) is correct. Melinda Warren was their great(x6)-grandmother (according to "The Witch is Back", the only episode with adult Melinda in). Therefore:

Melinda (great x6)

Prudence (great x5)

daughter (some people calling her "Cassandra" - uncannon name)(great x4)

daughter (great x3)

daughter (great x2)

P.Baxter (great x1)

Penny (great x0; grandmother).

Do we believe the error-ridden family tree, or what was told to us in the episode?

Furthermore, Phoebe said that Brianna was their great(x3)aunt in "Which Prue is it, Anyway?". Therefore, Brianna must be the sister of their great(x2)grandmother. Even in the episode it said she was the first-born witch of her generation, immplying sisters. Thus, Brianna and another sister of hers must be the mothers of P.Bowen and P.Russell, whilst their third sister is the mother of P.Baxter. I took a stab in the dark saying that she was P.Bowen's mother due to the many similarities between Brianna and Prue, and Prue and P.Bowen. The final family tree should show the reader that Brianna and an "Unknown daughter" are the mothers of P.Bowen and P.Russell (one daughter per mother).

I have discussed this with someone else on my talk page. Danny DeSio 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, I agree. In my opinion, it should go:

Charlotte
Melinda
Prudence
Lots of pretty question marks, nice and stylised in photoshop.
Cousins stemming from nowhere, nothing to indicate that they are direct cousins or that their parents were sisters.
Grams
Patty
Sisters
9 cousins
Question marks coming down from those nine.
Matthew, girl, various others.

Or, better yet, not have a tree at all. Zythe 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys hold on a sec. Danny you said We have already decided that the family tree [...] is uncannon. Without going into the spelling of Canon, I am quite surprised that you believe you are a higher authority than the show itself. You can say that the Charmed books are non-canon (and they indeed aren't) because their writers are not affiliated with the show. But the family tree appeared in the show itself, you cannot just write it off as 'non-canon' because you decide it is. It is a general rule that what is on the show (slash book slash movie etc.) is canon, even if it is self-contradictory, in which case the contradiction can be pointed out.

With the family tree, my problem is that the great times six grandmothers do not add up if you view it historically. Even if you give 30 years to each subsequent generation to be born, Melinda would have had to give birth to Prudence in 1730, and if I give 25 years to each subsequent generation to be born, Prudence would have to have been born in 1770 for the equation to add up. Trouble is, people didn't give birth to kids when they were 30 years of age in the 1700's and in the 1800's. Even according to the canon family tree, one of the three cousins was born when her parents were in their early 20's. Prudence Warren itself was born in 1695, when her mother was 25. Do the math based on the cultural setting, it just doesn't work with only 8 generations (Patty, Grams and the times six grandmothers and fathers).

You can do two things, one is that you try to guess what the real situation is from the canon sources ie. the show (either way this is already a case of original research), or you leave it as it is and not do any family tree. AdamDobay 21:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Adam, however from what you have just written I have no other option than to assume that you are completely ignorant. You claim that I should use "canon sources ie. the show" and not bring "original research" into my analysis of the Halliwell/Warren Family Tree. Yet, what I have written, only a few short paragraphs away from you, shows that all of my understanding of the family comes from canon (sorry that I made a spelling mistake earlier, some of us at Wikipedia are humans who do make errors and do not have an infatuation with spell-check) sources as were told to us on the show, or did you ignore that bit completely?

Phoebe, Prue, Piper: "[Melinda Warren is] our great, great, great, great, great, great, grandmother." [The Witch is Back, Season One]

Now this seems rather canon to me. However, if you wish to be blind sighted by a family tree which can only be fully observed if you pause the Season Two DVD at the correct millisecond; which is plagued with more mistakes that George Bush's arguments for going to war with Iraq; which seems only to contradict what was told to us on the show (something I see as far more canon than this failure of a tree) then go right ahead. I have stated the hundreds of faults in this tree and how the tree should look (based on the quotation above), and I intended not to state them all again.

Furthermore, Adam, the WE in We have already decided that the family tree [...] is uncannon, refers to the people who were involved in the above discussion entitled "Family Tree - just a note" in which the members present concluded that the tree must be un-canon due to the un-end of errors and contradictions. The tree was merely a quick concoction from the prop department that’s only purpose is to tell the audience the names of the "three cousins" and that one of them was Grams‘ mother. Otherwise the only way we would have known their names would have been the three cousins calling each other "P. Baxter", "P. Bowen" and "P. Russell" throughout the episode, something that would have been rather odd. I can see it now: “Hello P. Bowen, it’s me your cousin P. Baxter, don’t you hate our other cousin P. Russell […] I think I will name my future daughter Penelope Johnson, a.k.a. Grams, hint, hint!!” --User:Danny DeSio 07:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, I must say I feel a bit insulted because of the negative adjectives you marked me with, and I would like to ask you to stop calling me names.

A question: If you rewatch episode 1.09, when the girls say "great-great-great-etc. grandmother", listen closely, and you will hear that one of the three sisters says "great" one time more than the others. So what is canon then? What two of the girls say or what one of the girls says? How do you decide? When I referred to original research, I meant that you cannot nitpick one or two of the things said and/or shown in the show and claim them true. We are not to decide anything about what is true on the show, only if an external source documents it. You can point out contradictions if they appear on the show, but you can't decide this based on one of your own thoughts what is true. AdamDobay 08:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. Russell

I have a few questions relating to the information regarding P. Russell. Firstly, what is this "directory" that is spoken of in this sentence: "Although, in the directory of the episode Pardon My Past it is listed that her name was Phoebe Russell, but this could just be describing Phoebe's past life, and giving it reference, not stating her name as "Phoebe" "? Secondly, what reference was there to her in the episode "Apocolypse, Not"? Danny 08:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Grandmama

Who was called Grandmama in charmed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.138.202 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Charmed#Grandmama. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the Article Up A Little

I know everyone here likes to keep everything so packed up in one page (it can be a little annoying, sorry, but I am used to the stuff for Buffy, it is cool but like I said not completely used to it). The article on this page is long, and I was thinking maybe break it down just a little. Like split it into two pages, one for family, another for friends, lovers, and such (all on the smae page). It is just a suggestion, so don't breathe down on me. --Meraculas 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would benefit from being split, but I'd suggest it be split after the end of Additional family and the beginning of Close family. That is the cut off point between the old family e.g. pre-1900's and the rest are all modern era family members.--NeilEvans 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think we should split the article. If you want, make 2 articles in your namespace that show the split and we can all vote on it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually split the page into two articles not too long ago, but someone chose to revert it. Therefore, maybe a vote would be the only diplomatic way to make a decision... I do like the idea, though; splitting all family from friends, lovers, co-workers etc. →Danny 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you NeilEvans, but the close family are still family. I am working on creating an idea of the split articles in my namespace. For it am am putting the close family in the family page and on the friends page to see where the close family should go for now. Let me know which one once the pages are finished. --Meraculas 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've separated the article on my userspace Warren line and Charmed family and friends. Take a look and give some feedback.--NeilEvans 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like them. They keep the close family and friends separate from the relatives from the warren line. Just as a side note, why was the family name changed from warren to halliwell, when grams said the women in this family keep their name.--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do look good. However, the article names may need tweaking somewhat, given the first article includes more than just the Warren line (the '20s cousins, "Additional family"). Perhaps List of Charmed ancestors and List of Halliwell family and friends, to be specific as to their content and timeframes? And Mal, I believe that "rule" was made up by Penny, given her distinct dislike of men after Allen Halliwell. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the names would need to be modified slightly. I would suggest Charmed ancestors, or Ancestors of the Charmed Ones and Halliwell family and friends, or Charmed Ones, family and friends as the articles would be more than just a list of names. Of course the Charmed template would need to be changed to match the new article titles too. So do you think we should wait for more people to comment or go ahead and change the articles.--NeilEvans 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While they do have expanded information, at their heart, they are just lists. Wikipedia's preferred naming method for these types of situation is to append "List of" to these articles (which is what this article, as well as the books and powers etc etc also use this format). Keep in mind, simplest is usually the best, so "Charmed Ancestors" and "Halliwell family and friends" would work best in this situation. Make sense? The template should probably just use "Ancestors" and "Family and friends". And definitely hold off a while before switching up. One day is never enough time for a "controversial"-type change. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense. We can leave the page as it is then for a while, to allow others to comment.--NeilEvans 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have lists of possable new pages. Check them out User:Meraculas - List of Charmed Family and User:Meraculas - List of Charmed Allies. For the friends part I made the list to be a little more easy linkable as well as added Richard Montana and a couple others. I am going to be working on cleaning up the pages a bit more, though. --Meraculas 12:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is ok, however you have included Close family in both pages. The information should only be included on one page. I know it may seem biased but I feel my suggestion to keep the Warren line and others born pre 1900's should be separate from family born post-1900's, like Grams and Patty etc along with the Charmed Ones allies. I feel the close family and allies are more pivotal to the series than the ancestors, as they played direct roles and had major influences in the lives of the Charmed Ones.--NeilEvans 15:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Neil's organization in this situation. Also Meraculas, do you realize that you created a top-level User page? When creating personal test pages, create subpages under your account, like User:Huntster/WS/Charmed for example. I would suggest that you move those pages you created to personal subpages, and ask an admin to delete the old ones. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May is suggest the removal of "Others: Other grandchildren of Piper Halliwell and Leo Wyatt may include two other granddaughters and two more grandsons." from the grandchildren section? It is pure speculation with nothing to back it up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it!.--NeilEvans 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since the suggestion to split the artcle was put forward and there have been no new comments about it, so shall I go ahead and split the article like we suggested?--NeilEvans 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What article names will be be creating? As I said above, it is important to follow naming conventions since these are lists. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to go with your suggestions above, List of Charmed ancestors and List of Halliwell family and friends.--NeilEvans 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Whatever assistance you need, just let me know. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've split off the Ancestors into their own page, but I decided to leave the title of this page as it is instead of creating another redirect. I'm gonna ammend the template to reflect the new page.--NeilEvans 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No family for Paige in Chris' future

Chris' later comments do contradict his original statement that Paige remained a statue, so do we want to note that contradiction or not? I suppose that I shouldn't have suggested his original statement was a lie (though it must be a lie if it's not a continuity error, and it goes with his implication that the Titans won in his future, which proved false), merely noted that there was a contradiction. If no one has some other objection, I'll just do that. Edit: Oh, maybe it was that the Spin City link went to a movie that I didn't know existed instead of to Spin City (Charmed episode). -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think by Chris going into the past he altered his own future. So he may have been saying the truth but over time his past changed to include her. For example in the episode Chris-Crossed we see his future and in it is included a Manor tour showing previous costumes worn by the past Charmed Ones. One of the costumes is Paige's superhero costume from Witches in Tights. Artemisboy 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about Matthew and Prudence

I have repeatedly removed this speculation because it's weak in one case and baseless in the other. If anyone would like to make a case for keeping it, please do so here. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Halliwell article

With regards to the Melinda Halliwell article being merged with this article. I really have no preference either way. Although she is only a very minor character so shouldn't really have her own article anyway.--NeilEvans 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened to Richard?

I didn't see anything in the page, but it would seem to me that Richard Callaway belongs in this list along with paige's matterhorn-climbing friend. Is there a reason that they are not included? Jpittman 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Richard was from the Montana family and yes I completely agree that he deserves and entry as he appeared in so many episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.19.251 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bennett

victor should have an article of his own he is the girls father and a impotant and big character in Charmed. We have seen him a lot of times in the show more than Samuel (he has his own). And if sam has one victor shoud have one too! If you guys think is a okai idea can I then bee the one who starts it. CharmedFreak123 6:26 pm 21 april 2007.

Please don't create this article. While he certainly appeared a few times, he was not a major character. The only reason that the other minor characters like Sam have articles is because someone created them without seeing how the other Charmed articles were put together. There simply isn't a great need for information beyond what is already presented, and if you do want to expand what is known about Victor, please do so in this article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brody Trivia

I removed the following Trivia section from this article.

Agent Kyle Brody is named after a young boy who was found in the basement of Rustin Parr's shack in the Black Hills Forest. Rustin Parr abducted eight children, including Brody, in 1940. He killed seven of these children, sparing Brody. He left cuts on their bodies similar to those seen in the Blair Witch movie. Parr later stated that an old woman told him to do these things. Kyle grew up to be insane, ending up in Maryland State Institute for the Criminally Insane. He is seen in the 1969 documentry writing in Transitus Fluvii, the language of witchcraft.

The description of what happened to the young boy here seems to be lifted directly from the video game Blair Witch Vol. 1: Rustin Parr. The article on that game however, makes no mention of it being based on a true story, and I believe that even if it was, they would've at least changed the names. It seems too closely a coincidence to be true, and even if the story of Rustin Parr is true and the survivors name was indeed Kyle Brody, we'd still need a quote from a writer or producer to show that they intentionally named the character after him and that it wasn't just a coincidental naming. Basically, this entire thing looks too much like nonsense right now to leave in, even with the cite needed tag. So I've removed it, and would ask the original author of it that if he wants to add it back in, he do so only with a proper citation. --Maelwys 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here have a cookie. No seriously, I didn't even notice that. I hate OR. I've never even heard that story. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names for children and grandchildren

in the article it says that piper's daughter's name is prudence melinda. Where was this confirmed? also where are the names for their grandchildren gotten? Jpagan09 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prue in this article

Why? She's a Charmed one. Why is she in this article if the other girls are not? Seems inconsistent. KellyAna (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebes Daughter Paitence

Can we see some proof here please? There was no mention of it in the show, just her nickname 'Ladybug'. Please add a reference, whoever added her name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.219.140 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Comment Was MeSorry Left It unsigned, its been removed, it does seem a name Phoebe wouldpick but there was no reference, if there is one, could it be added back? Harmless 77 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Patience was mentioned in interactions with Chris in one of the later episodes involving the Avatars take over. IIRC, the one after they came to power and Leo decided belatedly to oppose them and change the world back since free will had been given up. // FrankB 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started Sections

Morphing Article for Merging: Concurrent with outstanding mergeto suggestions, started reformatting this article into a section mode anticipating merger into an omnibus List of Charmed characters article. Regardless of the outcome, sectionalizing the list articles alphabetically is a great aid to linkages and writing our articles. Also makes it easy to spot missing coverages, such as (at the moment) the dear departed wrong-headed and dutiful Inspector Sheridan, R.I.P.. // FrankB 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Charmedtitlelogo1.jpg

The image File:Charmedtitlelogo1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]