Talk:Charmed/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Longest running" series with female leads

Despite allegedly coming from the mouths of the cast and/or crew of Charmed, this bit of trivia is not true as the series The Facts Of Life ran for longer than Charmed at 9 years. The series' leads in TFOL were also all female. IMDB link here[1] and opening credits sequence here[2] and here [3] (beware: annoyingly catchy theme tune).Kookoo Star (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are not acceptable for various reasons. TV Guide is the original publisher of that trivia, and I'd hope they would vet it. Perhaps they are only counting adult leads, or shows within a specific genre, or something else, but that citation stands. As WP:V puts it: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not just truth, but verifiability." And supposedly fact-checked sources such as TV Guide are what we rely on. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You might "hope" that they vet it, but that does not mean they did. TV Guide is primarily a listings magazine that features interviews and articles about current television shows. It is not a TV encyclopedia and cannot be regarded as one. It is merely reiterating what Brad Kern said in his interview with them and just because he claims something does not make it true the same way that just because the magazine didn't fact check it before printing does not make it reliable. Kern might have been trying to hype Charmed or may just have been mistaken. The TV Guide article does not say that they were only counting adult female leads so you cannot assume it just to prove your point (furthermore, the Facts Of Life ensemble were all at least in their mid 20s by the time the show finished, except for Charlotte Rae and Chloris Leachman who were both about 150). The TV encyclopedia "Total Television" by Alex McNeil also lists The Facts of Life as the longest running female ensemble show at 9 seasons (which is a valid source with the ISBN number). If its a source for the actual length of TFOL series that you find questionable, then I can find plenty of them online. Concerning the issue of WP:V, the very most you could write in the article is that "in a 2006 interview with TV Guide, Brad Kern claimed the series was the longest running show with female leads" and not pass it off as a fact when there is clear evidence to the contrary. To pass it off as a fact is damaging to Wikipedia as it propagates his own error. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well written. I'll work on better wording later on. Thanks for the book source as well, I'll try to find a way to implement it. Yeah, I know sources like TV Guide and others are not always correct, but Wikipedia treats them as such until something else (preferably more recent or more "expertly" written) can prove it incorrect. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine if you want to reword it to reflect what was discussed above, but the passage should be removed from the article page until this is done since it is now known to be factually inaccurate. To be absolutely honest, I dont think that this self-given accolade of "longest running show with all female leads" (plural) is particularly significant. The distinction of being the longest running female-led show (i.e. - with either a single or multiple female lead characters) would be more notable in terms of the prominence of women in television, but specifying whether a show has one or more than one female lead seems to be splitting hairs in order to justify some kind of notability (did you notice that even the TV Guide article picked up on this). It's "peacocking" basically, not to mention incorrect. In either case though, Charmed has still been outranked by Murder She Wrote, Murphy Brown, Alice, and Roseanne for female-led shows, and by The Facts Of Life for shows with all-female leads. It can even be argued that The Golden Girls lasted 8 seasons when taking into account The Golden Palace (the title of the show for its final year, whilst it was still essentially the same series). To be honest, I think its best not mentioned in the article as it just diminishes it. Kookoo Star (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree that it's inaccurate. And I can't see why we can't use the show facts of life itself as a source. But ah well, this issue seems to be solved anyway, just wanted to add my opinion about it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree firmly with the removal of this information. The source of the record-breaking doesn't appear randomly from the mouths of cast and crew but, as confirmed in an offical press release from Spelling Television Inc., from the Museum of Television and Radio. [4]. Wikipedia's policy of reporting information based on sources is being rejected here for original research as we are going against the reports of Spelling Television, The Museum of Television and Radio and the media (including Entertainment Weekly [5]; TVGuide [6]; Titan Magazines and the Official Charmed Magazine [7]; TV Series Finale [8]; DVD Verdict [9]; amongst many more online sources). Furthermore, checking the IMDB link provided above, I was able to see that TFOL ran for just under 75 episodes, whereas Charmed ran for 178. Therefore, Charmed has been on air with fresh episodes for a longer time than TFOL, making it the longest running series in terms of number of episodes (not number of years). As such, Charmed is indeed the longest running series with female leads as it was on air for a LONGER run of individual episodes. Essentially, 178 episodes with an all female cast is "longer" (more hours on air) than 75 episodes with an all female cast. Olympic (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but what I don't understand is what do you mean facts of life has seventy five episodes? According to this article it has few more than 200, mind explaining what you meant there? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly asking because I don't know anything about Facts of Life, and it looks like on that article I pointed it has few more than 200. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bring that to my attention; I hadn't check the wikipedia article. My source, as I mentioned above, was the IMDB link which claims that the show's longest-runnng actress lasted for "74 episodes, 1979-1988". I presumed that this was correct. Is there any offical confirmation on the episodic length of the series? Additionally, as a side note, could the Museum of Television and Radio have considered John Lawlor as Steven Bradley (1979-1980), a main lead? Olympic (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked a fansite for The Facts of Life where it claims that "209 total syndicated half-hour episodes" were aired. This therefore means that although there are 209 half-hour episodes (including commerical breaks), this would be relative to 104.5 one hour long episodes. As such, Charmed's 178 hour long episodes (or roughly 356 half-hours on air) out-lengthens TFOL in number of hours on air. This is most likely the criteria the Museum of Television and Radio is looking at: the number of hours airing on television. Olympic (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think longest-running means how many hours or episodes in total. Would you say that Pokémon is a longer running animation than The Simpsons just because it has more episodes? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "original series" (excluding spin-off type material) only had around 270 episodes, whereas The Simpsons is currently over 400. Still, I think that the record still applies to Charmed, we (as Wikipedia article writers) can't simply disagree with what has frequently been reported by numerous sources and pass it off as wrong. Surely that's original research and against Wikipedia's policies, right? Whatever the reason (such as whether the record apply to number of episodes, or whether it only includes hour-long dramas only and not sitcoms), the fact of its recognision in the media should be documented in the article. Olympic (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't original research if we prove an official source wrong with another official source, is it? I know nobody has so far, just making a suggestion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to restart a debate again, but I thought I'd point out something from the TV Guide interview with Brad Kern [10] in which he is quoted as saying:

I guess the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences contacted Paramount to alert us to the fact that we had surpassed the longest-running hour featuring female leads, and the only milestone left [to surpass] was the longest-running half-hour, Laverne and Shirley.

He specifically notes that the milestone applies only to hour-long series' and, despite what TV Guide claimed, the record does not mean that Charmed surpassed Laverne and Shirley as they are in two different categories. Similarly, The Facts of Life would also not fall into the same hour-long category and so this particular record would not apply to that show. I think information regarding the record should be reinstated onto the article with emphasis on it applying to hour-long series' only. Olympic (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this so-called "record breaker" is that it is not particularly notable. It's splitting hairs really. Who cares if it was an hour long or a half hour? Who cares if it had to have one female lead or multiple leads? It was neither the longest running show, nor the longest running female-led show. Next people will be praising Charmed for being the longest running show set in San Francisco that had a cat in it. It's just not relevant when you split hairs to such a fine degree. Furthermore, if you read the interview with Kern, he only IMPLIES that the Academy contacted them to know they'd passed a milestone. However, there are no press releases from the Academy or anything on their website that says anything to this effect which makes me think Kern is just self-aggrandising and bragging about something that isn't particular relevant.79.66.9.194 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If one is to compare the content of the specific category of the shows sitcom versus drama or the hour long series I personally regard the hour long series to have more substance to it. Saying that they are "splitting hairs" is not for you or I to determine but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the Museum of television and radio. Are you a part of either of the borads that determine the criterion for these accomplishments? I didn't think so. I believe that the argument to clearly state that Charmed is the "the longest-running hour-long show featuring leads" is very valid. The Academy Awards for example give awards to people that contribute to things we as the consumer and audience never really regard of as significant but they Academy recognizes them none-the-less. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss this show's however mild or mediocre accomplishment(s). It is the 21st century and it's about time we start realizing that things aren't as black and white as some people are trying to make it, especially those who comment on pages like this that do not even care enough about the topic to form an account on this website and is naive enough for everyone to see their IP address. That clearly denotes a lack of intelligent thought and should be looked at as not of logical opinion/input of the topic at hand.(Darkfairy 1313 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfairy 1313 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you a member of the Academy? Because the problem here is that neither the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences or the Museum of Television & Radio have actually explicity made this announcement. As someone mentioned above, Brad Kern merely suggested that they had done so in an interview to TV Guide ("I guess the Academy got in touch with Paramount to tell us..." etc). Look at his wording in the interview. It's all very vague, and Kern's word for this without an actual press release from the Academy themselves means very little. Have the Academy made this public on their website? No. Is it printed in any recent Guinness Book Of Records or television encyclopedia? No. Has any official body apart from those involved with the production of Charmed made a big deal of this? No. And why? Because it's not notable! If it's such a big deal, then why didn't the Academy or the Museum make a big deal out of it? This is just some lame, self-congratulatory accolade that Kern has invented for himself because Charmed was about to get axed and he wanted something to talk up as it finally got laid to rest. 8 years is a considerable achievement for any show, but it isn't a record breaker - or at least not a record worth mentioning just because the series was about three women as opposed to one and/or the episodes had a longer running time than a sitcom. Even TV Guide (in which he made the claim) don't seem to be that impressed by the distinction between a series with one female lead (Murder She Wrote) or more than one female lead. It seems to me that only die-hard Charmed fans are impressed with this because, probably like Kern himself, they want something to cling to that immortalises their now defunct show. And before you start knocking people for lack of intelligent thought, you might want to correct your spelling mistakes. 89.168.116.82 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I really must agree. It's been exactly a year now since this particular discussion thread was started, and nobody has managed to provide a viable reason why Kern's claim should be included. It really is such a weak and ridiculous accolade, it reminds me of what James Cameron said about his first film "Piranha II: Flying Killers" which he declared as "the best flying killer fish comedy horror film ever made". He said it tongue-in-cheek, but Kern's claim (which is indeed just self-congratulatory nonsense and there is no proof the Academy or the Museum of Television had anything to do with it) is almost as laughable because it's just so irrelevant. Kookoo Star (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

About those tags

Hello, I'm sorry to have blasted the page with tags, but I didn't know who to go to about the issues on this page. First off, let me start by saying that I understand that whoever has been adding content and editing is only trying to help. However, that person/those people are also ignoring some very basic elements of Wikipedia's policy that they may or not be aware of. Only notable content should be added to pages as defined by wikipedia's notability guidelines. With that being said, most of the pages for the characters and locations should not exist and should be merged into a list. But for the main article:

• It's got quite a bit of unnecessary content. Why do we need to know that Charmed Ones links here and why? That should be established within the article itself.
• The bit in the infobox about the 179 episodes (including the un-aired pilot) means that only 178 episodes were actually produced.
• There should not be two sections for plot details. ONE plot synopsis section should suffice and it should SUMMARIZE rather than retell. Furthermore, please see writing about fiction for help with style.
• There was previously a development section under production. Why was that removed? It contained information that Wikipedia encourages users to add.
• Please see Lost (TV series) or Heroes (TV series) for assistance in re-writing the character section. Also, mentioning every character that appears in more than one episode is unnecessary; only the most relevant ones.
• Try combining the ratins/episodes sections into one title "Distribution." Include information about promotion, domestic broadcasts, international broadcasters, schedule changes, syndication and DVD releases here.
• The recurring themes section is kind of unnecessary.
• Integrate information from the show changes section into other sections. In initial changes, include the bit about Rohm and Morris and the girls' father in the characters section. Include the info about a full season pickup in the development section (which I hope is re-added). Put the stuff about the changes in the universe and story structure in the plot synopsis. Add the details of shannen doherty's departure in the characters section and put schedule changes in that distribution section I mentioned earlier.
• Finally, CITE your sources (see Template:Citations for help in doing this properly) and WRITE with the appropriate style (see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for help).

Good luck! The no erz (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

xpost User talk:The no erz

re: talk:Charmed#About those tags

• You're entitled to your opinion but it'd be far more impressive, not to mention efficient (than citing guidelines like a prick) if you were to actually do some constructive editing and fix some of the issues you complain about. Talk is very cheap. The world has enough know it all's and givers of unwanted advice.

• Oh, one annotates a heading with major terms or phrases when such redirect links might drop an unwary reader into a page for which they have no context... call it courtesy and common sense. Disconnecting the customers isn't smart. See the various disambig and Redirect templates for examples which have been institutionalized for years... there were six to ten or so last I looked. oh... I forgot, you've longevity just short of one of those years, so you may not know it all after all. Sheesh! // FrankB 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article again, I reverted your wallpapering. Such is vandalism, afaik. Taking your list item by item interleaved:

• It's got quite a bit of unnecessary content. Why do we need to know that Charmed Ones links here and why? That should be established within the article itself.

• Unnecessary to whom? The guy or gal fan trying to check this or that? Whose to know what they are checking?
    The second part is covered above. Redirects to an article name with a very different name of a redirect link covering a topic unworthy of an article, needs to handle disjoint adverse confusion such causes in our readers.
     

• The bit in the infobox about the 179 episodes (including the un-aired pilot) means that only 178 episodes were actually produced. {{

}}That will come as quite a surprise to the production crew that produced the piolet, the accoutants for the network, and various cast and crew. Don't be silly.
   

• There should not be two sections for plot details. ONE plot synopsis section should suffice and it should SUMMARIZE rather than retell. Furthermore, please see writing about fiction for help with style.

• I agree... 'cept you clearly haven't read both of them, and neither retells... eight years is a lot of plot development. Given the outline of the "series premise" in one, and coverage of the eight seasons of growth, plots and evolution in the second, this folks did pretty much the right thing so far as I can tell.
     

• There was previously a development section under production. Why was that removed? It contained information that Wikipedia encourages users to add. :*Have no clue what that means, but by all means be an editor, peruse the history and find out why someone took it out. Put the section back if you think it useful to someone.
     
• Please see Lost (TV series) or Heroes (TV series) for assistance in re-writing the character section. Also, mentioning every character that appears in more than one episode is unnecessary; only the most relevant ones.

• This I'll likely be changing, as I've spent the night merging several list articles into one main list article List of Charmed characters, though it still needs some work. Clearly a reference to this page with a brief word or two of context will do.
     

• Try combining the ratings/episodes sections into one title "Distribution." Include information about promotion, domestic broadcasts, international broadcasters, schedule changes, syndication and DVD releases here.

• Now that's what I call useless data, but more power to you.
     

• The recurring themes section is kind of unnecessary.

• Depends on whether the points were made elsewhere. The tenor and focus of the series changed an awful lot over eight seasons. This section says a lot of why it was popular with young females.
     

• Integrate information from the show changes section into other sections. In initial changes, include the bit about Rohm and Morris and the girls' father in the characters section. Include the info about a full season pickup in the development section (which I hope is re-added). Put the stuff about the changes in the universe and story structure in the plot synopsis. Add the details of shannen doherty's departure in the characters section and put schedule changes in that distribution section I mentioned earlier.

• Whaaaaaa???? Garble, garble yourself.
     

• Finally, CITE your sources (see Template:Citations for help in doing this properly) and WRITE with the appropriate style (see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for help).

• I think you'll find the decision to eliminate the episode by episode titled articles left most of those behind in the pages that are now redirects. I've been cleaning up other aspects of that.
     

• Lastly, you hung a {{Tone}} template... why? The only possible reason I can figure re-reading is the term Jiggle Television, which originated on the A&E Networks Biography Channel covering Aaron Spelling. It dates back to Charlie's Angels. // FrankB 06:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot snyopsis

The following was moved to Paige's character page:

Paige is presented as the most conflicted of the four main characters in that she plays a dual role which resonated the show's consistent theme of good versus evil. In one respect, Paige is the ultimate caregiver by working as a social worker early on in her life, before leaving her job to better herself as a witch in order to work for good of those around her. This goodness can be partly attributed to her being half-Whitelighter in that it is in her nature to help others; it is, in fact, her destiny as during the fifth season she begins being trusted with charges of her own, starting with her alcoholic father Sam Wilder. During the course of the series, her whitelighter powers grow and her responsibilities increase, becoming headmistress of Magic School during the seventh season and gaining more charges, including neophyte witch Billie Jenkins in the eighth season. In contrast to this aspect of Paige's nature, she also has elements of darkness within her. She is the most rebellious and vulnerable Charmed One, a role which is personified by her past-life the Evil Enchantress from season four's "A Knight to Remember". This discovery came at the same time as she struggled to be as good a witch as Prue was, a feeling which she described as her not being as powerful and knowledgeable as the perceived "super witch" Prue. This caused problems which affected her life and her relationships: her desire to be the best at any cost was a kind of evil which nearly cost her the good side of her personality. When Paige fought the Evil Enchantress, the imagery was of Paige confronting the parallels within herself. Though this story arch concluded in the fifth season episode "Sympathy for the Demon", in which she conjured a dove in the same way Prue had once done, Paige underwent other story arcs in which her conflicting nature was dealt with, such as her mistrust for Cole when the rest of her family opposed this view. Ultimately, Paige's ongoing struggle to balance the different aspects of her personality, and her responsibilities as a witch and whitelighter with her desires as a human, serves as the metaphor for the battle between moderation and excess and, even, between good and evil, which the sisters have fought in many forms throughout the series.

The above excerpt, while informal, is better suited to be included in an article that examines the character of Paige rather than the main article which purpose is to introduce and explain the general concept about the series as a whole. TJ 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Oh my God, I have never read a worse Wikipedia article. It's like it was written by a 10 year old who has absolutely no comprehension of what an encyclopedia is (they obviously think of it as yet another fan page). I've started to do a clean up, tidied the grammar, deleted irrelevant or unsourced info, etc. I've only got as far as "Series Overview", so if somebody (preferably somebody who has finished high school) wants to have a go at the rest, then please do so. But please bear in mind, the article is not a fan page and not a depository of any kind of useless factoid that you can lay your hands on. Keep the information straight forward, simple, relevant, and SOURCED. Adios. 79.66.90.249 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just revert everything back to the earlier version of this page, before a lot of the fan cruft spilled in on it? It seems that once some of the viable editors moved on from the Charmed article, it fell into incoherent ramblings with a lot of non-sourced and/or mis-sourced material.TJ 09:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a good version to revert to, I would say goferit. I have made a first pass at removing some of the most blatant fancruft and mis-use of sources. But it still needs a LOT of work.

As frustrating as editing can be, I'm still going to have to ask you not refer to other editors and the volunteer effort they've put into our site, useful or not, with a heaping of abuse. Incidentally, here is a now-removed section that would be valuable if it was rewritten to have its statements backed by something more reliable than the word of an open wiki. I can't do it myself, not having seen the series, but anyone else should feel free... --Kizor 22:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if stupid little fan-idiots keep ruining the article by turning it into some lame fanwank page, then they deserve the contempt they get. 80.41.106.176 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

description of paige's powers on charmed page

who ever edited this stated that the the fans and the WRITER's mistaked Paige's powers as telekinesis when it is actually teleportation. This is completely not true. It doesn't matter how her powers seemingly work. There is no way the writer's could mistake their own work. In addition it is stated in the show that the third sister MUST have the power of telekinesis. Phoebe states that Paige's whitelighter half made her telekinesis work differently. yeah, she can orb objects to other locations. but the fact of the matter is that her main power is telekinesis or else she would not be a charmed one. Jpagan09 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the section and your input, it seems to me the section needs a bit of cleaning up and clarification. In the section, there are many references to "orbs" and "orbing" which makes absolutely no sense to anyone who hasn't seen a few episodes. Additionally, your argument for Paige's power being telekinesis is borderline semantic. I think what is really necessary is a clear description of what orbing is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzini3000 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, I only ever saw one episode, and I could extrapolate the meaning of "orbed" from the context. This part of the article is written better than the show. 198.53.208.116 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Major edit features

Some considerable material was removed by 80.41.82.154, then replaced by the editor who wrote it. The justification for removing was poorly stated, but 80.41.82.154 was correct in that Wikipedia is not a fan site, and should not be used, for example to note the degree to which a show has a "cult" following. (Even relatively unsuccessful shows often have a dedicated following.)

On examination, there were other issues, especially that the article seemed to be being used as a promotional platform for Aaron Spelling, Constance M. Bruge, and others.

In formal writing, usually only the last name of a character, actor, or other person is given. An exception is the Halliwell sisters, where obviously they can't all be called "Halliwell".

A number of changes were simply following Wikilinking guidelines in WP:CONTEXT, particularly that duplicate links are usually not needed, and that common words do not need linking, but reduce the readability of the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a general problem with the level (and quality) of detail on this article as Charmed fans tend to run amok by cramming every little useless factoid into it and aggrandising the series beyond all belief. By doing this, they ultimately make the article lose credibility and turn it into a joke. The intro section has already had ridiculous details removed from it during recent months (such as saying Charmed inspired Quentin Tarantino, which is utter crap). The Beliefnet item about the Charmed Ones being "significant witches" is not relevant to the article as Beliefnet is nothing to do with television and Charmed is nothing to do with religion. Again, this is just loony fans cramming every bit of crap they can find into the article. Trivia such as this would be okay on fansites, but not on Wikipedia, and some people are having a hard time accepting that. 80.41.87.246 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Doherty citation difficulty

I bought a DVD of the third series. After watching, I was curious about Doherty's role.

In my original Wikipedia edit, I cited what appeared to be a transcription of a YouTube video, with Doherty explaining the reasons she left the series. Another Wiki editor commented that the transcribed source is unreliable. Perhaps so, but the transcription seemed to be faithful.

I found another source for the interview, in Google's cache.[11] I tried to cite that page in this Wikipedia article, but it appears that the interview text has just been removed. All it shows now is a picture of the cover of the magazine. Cute.

I'm looking at the magazine interview on my screen right now, and this is what it says:

"I think that everything that has happened in my career has made me who I am, so why change it. Maybe I wouldn't have done "Charmed" if I had to do things over again. But even "Charmed" was an experience that I learned so much from. I learned to trust my instincts and my gut and not get involved in the drama and the bull**** that goes on with young girls. I really learned a lot in that situation. It was a good TV show and it was fun and entertaining and it got me a broader fan base so I have to be thankful for it. I couldn't go, "Well why didn't I learn my lesson the first time?" [Referring to "Beverly Hills 90210"] There's just always more to learn.

Would you do a show like "Charmed" again with two other hot actresses?

Would I do it again? Probably not. I think Aaron Spelling is an absolute genius at what he does, but does that necessarily work for me? Probably not.

So you wouldn't work for Aaron Spelling again?

You can never say never, but I'm going to say to you right now, absolutely not. It has nothing to do with him. I think he's a great guy. It has more to do with the people who run his company. Those people looked at me and said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But my philosophy is that you have to be honest and always make things better to make sure they don't break, because once it breaks the audience is gone. Why can't we challenge ourselves? There's always room for improvement.

If you were a guy, do you think the perception of you would be different?

Probably. Only because I think a certain person, who will go unnamed, from Aaron Spelling's company is very respectful of men, and when it comes to women the attitude is "I pay you to do a job so shut up and look pretty and say your lines" And I don't follow that policy very well.

Does it bother you that Aaron Spelling's company didn't come to your defense after the rumors that you were hard to work with made the tabloids?

I've worked as an actress for 21 years and only [Aaron Spelling's company] has ever said anything bad about me. Every other company will get on the phone and tell you how professional I am and how wonderful I am to work with. I just did a movie with Shirley MacLaine, and that woman had absolutely no problems with me. She loved me. She's offered to write newsletters about me! So it's interesting. Maybe if I had worked for a company that believed in the same things I believed in, maybe my life would have been filled with a lot less heartache. But when all is said and done, I have to thank Aaron Spelling because he gave me a career.

Would you have been successful if not for Aaron Spelling?

I probably would have been successful anyway, because before "Beverly Hills 90210" I had already done "Heathers." Plus like I said earlier, talent always prevails."

I have saved a copy of this cached web page on my computer, and have also taken a screen snapshot of the text I quoted.

It is important to talk about all aspects of a show's artistic development. If Halliwell's character was killed off, not as an intended part of the plot, but because she quit due to artistic differences -- that should be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia should report factual statements -- regardless of whether they are later retracted for whatever reason. If Doherty said it, she said it. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be a huge problem with encyclopedias sometimes, PNT. I've had this challenge time and again here on Wikipedia. It's not easy to understand the diff between "facts" and "verifiability", but they are two very different things, and encyclopedias, while the need for facts are an underlying requirement, are all about verifiability. If one cannot furnish a reliable source, then a fact is a wisp of smoke. Only reliable sources are acceptable for any claim that might prove to be disparaging to any person or organization.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unneeded Pages

I have a feeling that a lot of pages, including those for Any Trudeu, Dan Gordon, and many of the less significant demons should probably be merged into this page or merged into a characters page, as many of those characters are not important enough to justify their own entry's. Obviously, The Source, Cole Turner, Zankou, etc.. should retain their pages as they were major antagonists through the seasons they appeared in, but many were only around for a few episodes, then were vanquished or killed. I'm just looking to see what the opinion on this is. Killswitch Engage (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky question, because it hinges on how significant "Charmed" is.

Go to Lord of the Rings. On the sidebar, try "What Links Here", selecting 500 entries [12]. Notice there are not just 500, but 1,000s. Then, if you want to see something I've never seen in Wiki, in all my years, have a look at List of Middle-earth characters. Be prepared to be amazed. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that someone should start a Middle Earth wiki and port all of that to there (removing most of it not here) -- and possibly something similar with much of the charmed stuff. But then, Wikipedia had articles on things that would not be deemed worthy of separate articles from the beginning, as well as longer articles -- its the advantage of modern data storage and this format, so people should embrace it some extent and not get too anal about what is worthy. --Jared (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoebe's empathic power

on the charmed page it says that phoebe loses her powers (which is correct) but gains back the power of premonition AND empathy. the only power she gets back is her power of premonition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpagan09 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, but changing you might get you in trouble with wikipedia. Though the original episode is a verifiable source, I'm sure the powers that be at wikimedia would disagree and call seeing it "independent research." But then, considering some of what passes under there noses, and that this passed, maybe I'll just take a chance and change it myself -- and its not like the current claim has a real citation either. --Jared (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only information that people are likely to dispute that needs citation. If you really feel it's inarguable fact (and important), then by all means add it to the article without one.

(Another reason for adding citations is simply to give readers a place to go for more information that doesn't fit in the article. So it's ok, even good, to give a reference to a reliable site that has similar standards to Wikipedia, even if it's not "necessary by the rules".) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Charmed Comics

Whay is the Charmed Comics in Spinoffs section? I think it should be in the Distribution section at the same level as the Charmed books. --Aideltxu (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's being thought of as more credible in that it's not set "between" episodes but, in being a continuation, is a distinct 'spin-off'. I'm indifferent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

plot section does not discuss the begining, middle, and ending of the series, needs rewrite

plots are supposed to explain the beginning the middle and the end.... this plot section has none of the above. i wanted to quickly find out how the series "ended", since i used to watch the show sometimes and now its ended its run and been cancelled. I couldnt find a thing that elaborated on how the series ended or what happened on the final show(s) to the characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

in norway it currently airs on fem but only there

a reliable source is tvnorge.no. i also checked tv 3 and viasat 4, neither of which airs it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC) the source listed in the article have become outdated.

Paige Error

I just noticed the word "vanquished" at the end Paige's character description. Was this in reference to Henry Jr. or Paige herself? Forgive me if I am wrong, but Paige was not vanquished (Prue was the only sister who died). At least there was never any mention of it in the final episode. They all lived "happily ever after," or though that episode alluded to that outcome. If anyone can provide a source to confirm that she eventually was, I would be interested in seeing it. How would anyone know anyway, since the story stopped with that final episode? Perhaps I misread the passage? In any case, I just thought I would post a query to find out for sure. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppamatic (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception seems a little one-sided

I find it hard to believe that all critics were in total agreement that Charmed was excellent. Are there no reputable reviewers who offer an opinion of the show counter to that expressed in this section? Tastyslowcooker (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops I made a little boo boo

Sorry edited incorrectly by accident, sorry if someone can change my mistake it would be helpfull. AliAngel77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAngel77 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Theme song

The original theme song for Charmed was "How Soon Is Now", both for the original airings and most of the DVD releases. I believe that the removal of this information is misleading, and that the information should be retained. What are the views of other editors ? Can we reach a consensus on this ? RJ4 (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Characters section

I think the characters section needs to be trimmed and should look like the characters section in the Parks and Recreation article. The information about Prue, Piper, Phoebe and Paige is too long and detailed. It needs to be shorter. There are articles for those characters with this information. I also think the list of recurring characters should be removed because they are not the main characters. If you take a look at articles about other TV shows, you'll only see information about the main characters. Again, there is already an article for recurring characters. Any thoughts or opinions? Lesahna01 (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5