Talk:Bewitched/Archive 1

Comment
Re: Endora's name(s) for Darrin:  A review of several episodes will show that Endora liked to call Darrin by any name that started with "D", as long as it wasn't Darrin. For example, "David", "Devin", "Donald", etc.


 * Yes, "Derwood" and "Dobbin" are a couple I particularly like :-) Rossrs 22:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Dum-Dum was kind of cute, too!--CountVasquez 09:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adam. Adam, like his father, and unlike Tabitha or Samantha, was a mortal.

Adam was NOT a mortal. Check out some of the last episodes.

The statement that Darrin never showed any affection for any of Samantha's family other than Aunt Clara isn't true, I don't think. It was indeed an exceedingly rare event, but I'm pretty sure it did happen. For instance, didn't he occasionally show a bit of empathy for Esmerelda? And even Endora, very rarely, would come to some sort of terms with him and the two would express at least a hint of grudging acceptance of one another. I seem to remember one such instance, perhaps in a Christmas episode, when Darrin suddenly seems to realize how much Endora means to Tabitha, and whatever anger Darrin feels toward Endora at that moment fades quickly. There was another time when he seemed to even appreciate her use of witchcraft. She had caused a water-main to burst, and had thus helped a local political-candidate friend of Darrin's to win an election and remove an obvious crook from office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berberry (talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought Alice Ghostley's Esmeralda was a hired nanny and not a relative. In the last season they once called her aunt in front of Darrin's client-but she was NOT a relative. [unsigned]


 * Whether she was a close relative or not, the reason she is mentioned in the section on Aunt Clara is because Esmerelda was essentially a replacement for Clara. I don't recall anyone saying she was specifically NOT a relative. She was probably some distant relative as the witch community was rather small. Anyway the location of her description is fine, and there's not really another good place to put her.Njsustain (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Passions
Some information should be added on the semi-spin-off in the soap Passions with Dr.Bombay and the "sort-of" Tabitha character. I haven't watched the show myself, only read about it, so I can't really add any details.

POV
Premering during the height of the conformity era of American culture, the show's witchcraft-related subject matter initially infuriated some right-wing Christian organizations, claiming that the show displayed the playful use of ungodly powers in a context that characterized them as good rather than the evil some Christians believed them to be.


 * Many people believe this, but it is entirely too POV for an encyclopedia. Needs a rewrite. -- Temtem 21:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * One cite-able reference to this might be the Jack Trick tract that was put out regarding the show. Satan was depicted watching Bewitched in Hell. I believe it is either available online or at the very least referenced somewhere online. A few years later this tract was later edited to reference Dark Shadows instead. TimBRoy (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the documentation for this controversy. Who said it and what are the sources?

Is it necessary to include the information about Elizabeth and Richard Michaels having an affair? Jude86 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "Jack Chick" but anyway, according to this link, it may be a myth that there was any Christian opposition to Bewitched at the time of its initial airing

http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/21815

Smiloid (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

McMahon or McMann
An anon changed the link to McMahon and Tate to a non-existent link to McMann and Tate. For now I've reverted this. But which spelling is correct? Google doesn't make it clear, as both spellings seem to get used a lot. A still from the show showing the name of the firm would settle it, or maybe a script. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other? &mdash; Stumps 08:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is definitely McMann. This site provides a screenshot: . Scroll down to Bewitched #127: If They Never Met. Gardn108 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Westport, CT?
I've seen a book which mentioned Westport, Connecticut as the location for Bewitched. However, in Aunt Clara's Victoria Victory, when Queen Victoria asks where she is, the location is referred to as New York. Is there any canonical reference in the show itself which refers to Westport? THD3 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

People who live in the NYC region often say they are from "New York." Presumably this would have been less confusing to the Queen than Westport.Njsustain (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That does make sense. More than once, I've heard of Connecticut and New Jersey being referred to as "suburbs" of NYC.THD3 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to confuse the issue even more. But in the 7th season episode, Samantha's Old Man, a New York license plate is clearly visible on Darrin's car. Since he takes the train to work, there is no reason he would have a New York plates unless he resided there. At this point, I think we need to aknowledge there seems to be an internal contradiction. Is there a "canonical" reference for Connecticut (meaning something that was seen on the screen during the show)?Bills16309 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a long standing mythology, I guess, that they are in Westport, but I don't really know where that came from. License plates on Hollywood TV shows aren't very reliable, and my comment above about referring to the whole area around NYC as "New York" is valid. Still, canonically, I would have to say it is more likely that the writers meant for the show to be in NY state. Too bad they didn't just pick a town, like in the Dick Van Dyke show, or Maude. Then again there's Brewster, the home town of Ann Marie on That Girl, and her father drove down all the time like it was nothing, but it's a four hour one-way drive, so these towns are always just fantasy verisions of the real thing anyway. Njsustain (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the show is in a mythical Westport, New York? I'm sure the producers never imagined people would be rewatching episodes decades later, disecting the minutia.Bills16309 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Time travel television series
"Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Double bed
Removed the reference to Darrin and Samantha being the first tv couple to share a double bed on screen. They were most famously beat in this "race" by The Munsters, but in reality the first couple was Marykay and Johnny.. on a show of the same name, which aired on the Dupont network on November 18, 1947. See www.snopes.com for more information.

Double bed citation
Snopes.com, though correct with "Mary Kay and Johnny," is actually wrong on this one with "The Munsters"- the Stephens were before them. Episode names, dates, and a citation are now in the article.

A Vision Of Sugar Plums
This is the Christmas episode in Season 1. Coincidentally, it is also the Christmas episode of Season 2, which is almost exactly the same, except for a Christmas card from the little boy, leading to a complete retelling of the aforementioned Season One episode. Does anybody know why this was done at all, simply copying the episode? Would it have anything to do with Elizabeth Montgomery's pregnancy, or Alice Pearce's (Gladys Kravitz) death (which are my assumptions)?


 * Flashback episodes are usually done to save time and/or money.THD3 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Recycled Shows
You are correct- the two episodes were recut and reshown due to Elizabeth Montgomery's pregnancy. She would've then had an extra two weeks to rest. 1

Ray Fulmer
Where on earth is the documentation for Ray Fulmer being considered for the part of Darrin? I've never heard about it before; not on Bewitched sites, not on sites about Ray Fulmer, nor on Hazel sites.


 * Agnes Moorehead said that her friend Shirley Booth suggested Ray Fulmer to her as a replacement. Fulmer had completed a one year run on "Hazel" in 1967.  However, Fulmer was still fairly new to Hollywood, whereas Sargeant was well known, about York's stature, and was considered for the part in 1963, even before York was hired.

vs. All In the Family?
Article states that "Bewitched" ran against "All in the Family" on Wednesday nights. "All in the Family" was never a Wednesday night program during "Bewitched"'s run.
 * Jan - July 1972, Bewitched ran against All in the Family on Saturday nights (not Wednesday). The show moved to Wednesday in September 1971 against the Carol Burnett Show.  I'll put it in the article. Squad51 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I Married a Witch
This 1942 rom-com is often cited as inspiration of the Bewitched show. It sets up the same dilemmas - mortal hubby and witch wife with interfering in-law (dad in the film; mum in the show, of course).

Sol Saks has stated in his book, The Craft of Comedy Writing, that “the idea of a witch living as a mortal…has been used in Greek mythology, in fairy tales, in novels, on the stage, and in motion pictures. The only real originality, I’m quite willing to confess, was that Bewitched was the first to adapt the concept successfully to the television screen.” (see )

Didn't any of the show's creators acknowledge this debt explicitly? Daisyabigael 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did- Sol Saks, the "official" creator, in the E! True Hollywood Story documentary on "Bewitched," mentioned "Bell, Book, and Candle" and "I Married a Witch," but was told not to worry since Columbia owned those anyway. (Arfies)

Tabitha?
The Daughter of Samantha and Darrin was initially named 'Tabatha' not 'Tabitha'. This is true until at least the 4th season (Credits).--CountVasquez 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Trivia section.
Why is the Trivia section just a rehash of the rest of the article?

DVD section of Bewitched
Where has the DVD section of Bewitched gone? This is very important because the series is being released on DVD!!! Season 5 is coming to DVD 10 July, 2007!! Jdcrackers 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratings For Bewitched
I created a Ratings Chart for Bewitched, but I could not find the Nielsen Ratings for Season 7. If anyone knows where to find the ratings for Season 7, please feel free to update it. I found the ratings for Bewitched from http://www.harpiesbizarre.com/declineofbewitched.htm and Bewitched Forever by Herbie J. Pilato. I thought this would go good for the Bewitched Section on Wikipedia. Jdcrackers 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

www.samanthasplace.bravehost.com

Witches' names
Not only do virtually every witches' name end in "a" but for the main family, they are arranged in alpha-chrono order. Clara, Endora, Samantha, Serena, Tabitha (with Enchantra and Hagatha presumably also fitting in this scheme.

I Married a Witch, redux
I deleted the statement that says -- without attribution -- that the show was based upon I Married a Witch. This is not supported by the featurette The Magic Unveiled on the season 1 DVD in which it simply states that Sol Saks was asked to write a pilot script about a witch who marries a mortal, and that the idea was subsequently merged with another proposed series idea about a rich couple. Obviously if there is a print or other reputable source that contradicts the DVD, please feel free to revert (with the source cited, of course). 68.146.8.46 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Seasons 6 through 8
Does anyone know if Seasons 6, 7, and 8 will be released seperately? I have been hearing rumours now that the Dick Sargent years of Bewitched will be released all together in a Box Set. Jdcrackers 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits
I removed the "Notable Facts" section and placed it here because a good chunk of the "facts" are un-citied and, in my opinion, totally irrelevant to the article. Most of the stuff can't be worked into the article (see:WP:TRIV:Wikipedia:Trivia sections, so instead of attempting to add to it, I moved it altogether. If anyone can add the facts without taking away from the original article, feel free to add them in. Pinkadelica 07:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable facts

 * Dr. Bombay appeared on two episodes of the NBC soap opera Passions. Tabitha Lenox, the witch on Passions, has a daughter named Endora and parents named Darrin and Samantha.
 * Dr. Bombay also appeared on the TV show Sabrina the Teenaged Witch, again played by Bernard Fox.
 * The show was featured in a Jack Chick tract, which portrays it as Satan's favorite television show.
 * Bewitched proved to be very popular with young girls when it first aired in Japan, and is considered to be the inspiration for the magical girl genre of anime.
 * Elizabeth Montgomery is the only actress to appear in every episode of the series.
 * Elizabeth Montgomery never actually "twitched" her nose. She would wiggle her upper lip back and forth, giving the appearance of the famous "nose twitch."
 * The "incantation" that allowed the witches to do magic, usually said to themselves, was "zoldar prenkem kopeck lum." Darrin, when he was granted temporary witch powers, also used this.
 * Male witches were referred to as "warlocks" as opposed to the modern "wizards."
 * The interior and exterior sets of the house and Darrin's "McMann and Tate" office were used in several episodes of I Dream of Jeannie.
 * An interesting side note; all witches' names ended in an "a", i.e., Smantha, Serena, Endora, Clara, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcrackers (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article missing something?
Like, say ... a picture of Elizabeth Montgomery? It looks a bit silly that the only photos we have are of Endora and the Kravitzes, with the actual lead characters represented by their Flintstones appearances. I know images are harder to use on Wikipedia, but if that Endora image has survived, surely there must be one available of Samantha and Darrin, too. 23skidoo (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Table?
Because of the large numbers of characters played by more than one actor (a famous point of this show's production history), perhaps it would be best if this article's character section be made into a table. Thanks in advance to anyone who could take time to do this.Njsustain (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just created character tables for the "Main Characters" and "Recurring Characters" sections under "Cast". Gardn108 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure if I should do it for the next part ("Characters Less Frequently Seen") since that section is more about describing characters not already mentioned earlier in the article's description of the show and less about character-actor connections. I'm not sure how useful this "Characters Less Frequently Seen" section really is, since nearly all of the characters on it only appear once or twice. With that criteria, feasibly guest stars from any episode could be listed here, so I suggest it be removed and any truly important rarely seen/mentioned characters be mentioned somewhere else in the show's premise description. Any thoughts? Gardn108 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this section is completely bloated. I don't think it should be eliminated, but should be cut back severely, like roses in the spring. Those characters who only appear/are mentioned once should be removed unless the appearance was something of extreme continuity importance.Njsustain (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing and structure
The article still reads like a fan site/diary. The rambling text needs structure and editing. The information needs to be relevant and encyclopedic. The premise section needs subsections and editing. The production section is a mishmosh of random information and needs major restructuring and editing. Tidbits of trivia everywhere need citations or should be removed... anything that can't be gleaned from the show itself needs references.Njsustain (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously a fire got in me and I made the changes that were needed, including editing to remove irrelevent information, editorial comments, major redundancies, and improved structure greatly. Honestly, some of it was obviously just randomly cut and paste from only tangentially related material. I think this is a decent article now. More references would help of course. Please keep further changes encyclopedic... this isn't a fan site or a blog. Njsustain (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gardn108, thank you for your contributions!!! This article is really looking fabulous now. We might even want to submit it for a good article evaluation. Njsustain (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is here to talk about how to improve the article, not to lament the past and chastise those who contribute with good faith. If whoever has been making these strange anonymous posts is serious, please describe how the article could be improved. If you really think the article used to be better, with its tangentially related material, irrelevant material, multiple redundancies, incorrect information, random ramblings, and second grade writing structure, could you please look through the article history and point out the precise day when the article was allegedly at its "apex." I would really like to see what it looked like at that time. Njsustain (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Powers of witches and series themes
The powers of the witches and warlocks in "Bewitched" were quite formidable compared to that of witches in other stories. Levitation, invisibility, flying, and making things appear from nowhere (including live things) were just the start. Influencing people's emotions and actions, creating sentient beings from nothing, time travel, and even influence of the time line are quite powerful compared to most tales of witchcraft, wizardry, and magic. Does anyone think these should be mentioned in the article?

Also, Darrin's harping about Samantha's use of her powers was a constant in the series but isn't mentioned in the article. Should it be? If so, where would be a good place for it? Could "series themes" be a useful subsection? Njsustain (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wayne's world/Pop culture references
The recent "wayne's world" edit, which borders on vandalism in my opinion, is totally inappropriate for that section. Bewitched has been mentioned on countless sitcoms as well as that movie, so an "In Popular Culture" section would be appropriate, but in the main description of the characters it is irrelevent and not a good description. This should be removed. I don't want to start an edit war so have asked the editor to revert himself.--Njsustain (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to revert, I didn't mean any harm. I will open a "Popular Culture" section - could someone please point me to a sample elswhere for format? I merely wanted to emphasize the shock value that switching actors had on regular viewers like me (and probably Mike Meyers and thousands of others as well). Stuart H. Alden (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No separation of article to create character article
I don't think the article should be split. This is a character based show... the description of the characters is the means by which the plot of the show is explained. If there were a separate article listing the individual characters it would simply be a "list" and take away from the article. IF a separate article is created, it should not replace the "Characters" section in the existing one. In other words, it is fine for there to be a separate article listing the characters, but it should be in addition to the current article, not split from the current article. Njsustain (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre classification
Isn't it a bit ridiculous to classify Bewitched based on a 14 issue comic book released 45 years ago? I mean, for crying out loud, there's a one line unreferenced mention of a comic book in the article. I certainly agree that it would be of "bottom" importance to the comic book project. Honestly, it isn't even worth mentioning on the talk page. It's just a nonsense header that is distracting. Njsustain (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon further research, it seems that a user was adding these headings willy nilly all over WP on any topic that was ever the slightest bit tangentially related to anything that was ever associated with a comic book (for example, on the talk page about the Batman theme song!). It does not add to the topic nor the talk page and I'm removing it. Njsustain (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Television
Wikiproject Television had rated this "start" class and "high" importance, but is no longer actively doing reassessments. Because their wikiproject is stagnant and I don't believe this would still rate as what they considered start class, it's not an appropriate tag for the top of this page and I have removed it. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Assessment
 * And how is removal of the assessment supposed to help? If you don't believe it rates as a start class, why didn't you re-rate it? GregorB (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily the responsibility of people pointing out bad information on Wikipedia to correct the information themselves. The Wikiproject Television is obviously dead and I'm not interested in becoming an assessor, only in impoving THIS article. If you feel you are qualified to assess it yourself, why don't you do so? If you don't, then I don't see the point of your comment. Njsustain (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the Wikiproject Television Tag and rated as High and C. Anybody so inclined can assess an article, or refrain from doing so.  I have taken the liberty of doing so.  Safiel (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please suggest what changes would make the article B-class in your opinion? Looking at some of the other articles which have been rated in the B and C classes, and the criteria, I would think "B" a more appropriate rating, in my opinon.Njsustain (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the article could qualify for "B" as it currently is. I was being rather conservative by rating it "C".  But if there are no serious objections, I see no problem at all with going with a "B" rating. Safiel (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Series summary information
I can not understand why the third paragraph of this "Bewitched" entry goes into detail about witches names ending in a "soft a" except for a some distant babysitter of Tabitha's. Tabitha had not even been introduced to the readers yet?!? As per my Journalism 101 classes from long ago, minutia should be placed at the very bottom of an article (if at all). I had tried several times to edit this, but apparently the original writer tenaciously retypes it back in. I agree that contributors are all probably fans of the series, but the goal is to enlighten an an uninformed reader. Said entry just obscures the reader from what he or she generally seeks- a succinct desciption/ definition of the subject. - SL


 * I see. So an ongoing element of the show (all females having their names end with the same sound) is "minutia", but the fact that Arthur made "ten" appearances rather than "several", and discussing a one-time character is not minutia, and is part of "a succinct desciption/ definition of the subject." Sorry, but that runs contrary to your claim. The consistency of the female names throughout the series is relevant. The one time character is not an essential aspect of the Arthur character nor of the series. Try taking Journalism (or English) 201. This is an encyclopedic article, not a news story. Encyclopedic articles should have elements in the right place, not haphazardly tacked on at the end. News articles need to get put out fast, which is why their literary style seems odd and irregular at times... which is fine for the latest headline, but not for WP. Also please note, unless you have done extensive research in the history, it is inappropriate to assume that a "tenacious" editor is the original writer of a certain piece of information, as doing so is accusatory and addresses personal motives rather than what is best for the article. Njsustain (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Touche! I withdraw my comments. So many good folks contribute here, and we all are fans of this GREAT series and its stars. I do not want to evoke hurt feelings, especially to another fan/ contributor. God Bless, and Happy Holidays/ New Year! -SL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.172.14 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where to check this, but I was sure that Adam did NOT have any supernatural powers. In the episode where the witches council come to test him, Maurice fakes Adam's powers to have him declared a warlock. - KP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazbec26 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but regardless of how "sure" you believe you are about this, you are incorrect. Once Darrin told Adam it was okay for him to display his powers to the witches' council, he proved to be a very powerful warlock. This was one of the last episodes of the series. Rent or buy the last season and you will see it. Njsustain (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why "trivia" tag?
With all due respect, I believe sometimes people tag sections because they have a crusade about those types of sections, rather than a problem with the actual content in question. Tags are a lazy way of attempting to improve WP, IMO when there is no attempt to edit or discuss. This type of tag is basically just a complaint. It's very convenient to have a prefabricated ditty: " "This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivia references. " Well, what exactly is the problem? There is a discussion, and this isn't an infinite list of random references to Bewitched. What is "trivial" or "minor"? These are merely a handful of examples of references the show over the years, and it is by no means out of hand. I'd like to hear exactly what the problems are and what can be done to improve the section. Without the discussion I don't think this tag is appropriate. It seems more like an automatic reflext to an "in popular culture" section rather than a beef with THIS "in popular culture" section.Njsustain (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Character numbers
It's important to list the Characters names and numbers so that everyone will know which actors and actresses played the role of some of the Characters in "Bewitched". It also helps to put and after each twin's name who played Tabitha just like on the Full House section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest, but this doesn't improve the article. There was one character, not four. The people who played it are listed chronologically, and as the dates are shown there is no point in repeating the character's name with numbers. We assume good faith in your edits, but as they are not in keeping with Wikipedia standards they will be reverted. You may want to discuss proposed changes here before making them on the article page. Njsustain (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More prominent episode link
Where would be an appropriate place to list a link for List of Bewitched episodes that is more prominent? I think it should go right before the TOC. Njsustain (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bewitched B&B
I thought that you might wish to note this item somewhere and provide the link. Thanks! The Bewitched B&B in Rehoboth Beach, Del. is a shrine to the '60s sitcom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061804299.html Rumjal rumjal 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

"The Bewitched Book" / Alice Ghostley info
The recently added info on Ghostley and the improper reference is fishy. While the book exists, why did the anonymous writer talk about the book's "First edition." What was the purpose of switching the Clara & Gladys paragraphs? I smell a non-encyclopedic motive. Full disclosure, please, anonymous editor. Anyway, I won't belabor the point. If the reference isn't done properly in a reasonable time I'll just revert it. New information is welcome, but this is not primary source info, so it needs to be done properly. Njsustain (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Clear COI/ commercial use of WP. The author of said book is currently promoting it. Any further fishy additions from said book will be reported to WP administrators. Njsustain (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: There have been repeated anonymous, unexplained edits which serve no encyclopedic purpose. There seems to be no purpose other than to focus the article to put the spotlight on certain other media. That is not the purpose of WP and all such edits will be reverted as COI based vandalism. Njsustain (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued suspicious activity from "Goomoo": This contributor has frequently violated the rules and spirit of WP. Here is one commenter's take from that user's talk page: "Your chronic disregard for Wikipedia's neutral point of view and original commentary policies makes your continued editing of articles problematic. While some of your analysis may be factual, without sources to back it up, it looks like just some person with an opinion trying to make it part of the public record. If the analysis you're adding to articles is backed up by published, reliable sources then identify those sources. Otherwise, don't add it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)"

Again, some of the additions here have been suspicious in addition to having the wrong tone and being unsourced. It seems like promotional infor for that book which must have been recently re-released or something. In any case I will revert any similar edits without comment.Njsustain (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Title in other languages
An anonymous poster added the titles of Bewitched in other languages. Though interesting, it is completely unsourced. Does anyone think it needs sourcing? I think a list of this nature requires a source in an encyclopedic article, or it should be deleted. Njsustain (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no other comments so far. I tagged the section. I think it's an interesting list and should be kept if sourced. Otherwise it will be removed eventually. Njsustain (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been no sources for where the titles initially came from. I'd really like to see this section stay, but as people have been editing the translations, it gives less creedence to the validity of the original list that was posted. If there are no sources forthcoming it will be deleted in the relatively near future.Njsustain (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Other Shows section relevent
The "other supernatural television shows" section is somewhat interesting, but I don't think it should be part of this article. This is a holdover from the article's ancient non-encylopedic history. If this is important information it should be a separate article. The section is becoming a garbage/trivia magnet. It's not quite encyclopedic and has unclear boundaries. In any case I don't think it's appropriate for an article on a particular show. Opinions? Njsustain (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The entire section is unencylopedic and basically just a POV/trivia section. I think it should be removed.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A reluctant delete because it is irrelevant and trivial. But Melissa Joan Hart is my favorite actress, ergo the reluctance... Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bewitched distributors
Do we really need to have who syndicated the show in reruns in the infobox. Can't we just cover who aired it in first-run production? Glickmam (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure the list is fully accurate. I know that episodes on Nick at Nite in 1995 were through The Program Exchange (it was when I first saw and taped the show). Everything else in the infobox is easily verifiable, but I would agree that the syndication distributor list should be removed (unless there's a source for them all). Mupept (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that vandals, probably corporate vandals from Sony, keep changing the production company to "Sony Pictures Entertainment" even though no such entity existed when the show was produced. That vandalism just never stopped, it was absolutely relentless... until someone had the bright idea of putting the distributor in the infobox. Some people at Sony are simply hell bent at putting their name in the infobox. If there is not accurate place to put it, well, they are just going to stick their name wherever they want, even some place inaccurate and ridiculous. If the list of distributors isn't complete, perhaps the category can be changed to "Current distributor". I agree the article doesn't need the entire history of syndicators, but I don't see anything wrong with listing the current distributor, especially if it prevents relentless vandalism by corporate idiots.Njsustain (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose deleting all but "Sony Pictures Television" and adding "(current)" after it since there's no option for "current distributor" in the TV infobox template that I've seen. Mupept (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am leaning toward agreement with this. The infobox should be for "at-a-glance" information, not an exhaustive list. If anything, it can be broken out into the article somewhere. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the list of distributors can be put in the article, but the infobox section can simply say "Current: Sony Pictures Entertainment". Deleting it entirely will result in constant vandalism from the corporate vandals. Unless you want to convince the administrators put put the half-lock on the article we will be back where we started. Njsustain (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bewitched's 9th season
Bewitched, if you will go back and look at the facts, was supposed to run for a 9th season, instead the Ashmont company produced another show in its place to fill the contract. Montgomery did not come back for the 9th season, so her then husband produced another show maybe the Paul Lynde Show was produced and I will find the source/s for this. I have been editing this page for over 6 years. Thank YouJdcrackers (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is nice. You should then be aware already of Citing sources, WP:RS, and WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care how long you have been adding wrong information to this article, it is still wrong. No one will believe that ABC wanted to renew a show that had fallen to 72nd place in the ratings until multiple RELIABLE SOURCES have been cited. Your edits have been disruptive and will be taken to administration if they continue. Njsustain (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, based on the dates and articles edited, I believe you are the same person as the disruptive user Goomoo. This is sockpuppeting, which, as a long time user of WP you are obviously aware is against the rules. If you or Goomoo disrupt this article again I will be bringing this sockpuppetry up to administration as well and you risk having both those accounts deleted. So why don't you go bother the constructive editors at The Flying Nun or Mannix or My Mother the Car and stop your pointless and futile crusade to discuss a non-existent 9th season of Bewitched? Njsustain (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, wonderful news, everyone, the highly educated JDCrackers left me this personal message about some impending information about Bewitched's 9th season:


 * Excuse me, but I have used sources and I don't vandalize. I am a highly educated woman and I know what I am talking about.  I will contact ABC and find out what is what and then I will  back up my claims. I am not harrassing you, but simply telling you the facts.  Bewitched was a very popular show as I grew up watching it. Have a good dayJdcrackers (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, wonderful! I can't wait to see what ABC tells you. I'm sure they'll send you a certified letter telling you what their plans were for one of their lowest rated shows from forty years ago! Please don't leave us out of the loop, Dr. Crackers!!!!! Please tell us exactly what ABC tells you the minute you hear from them! Njsustain (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inspirations
An editor recently added a line and as a reference used an arbitrary internet comment about a story whose plot had nothing whatsoever to do with that of Bewitched. This was reverted. In a response which I consider being done out of spite, the following long standing text was removed by said editor from the beginning of the "Production" section:
 * Inspirations for this series in which many similarities can be seen were the 1942 film I Married a Witch (from Thorne Smith's unfinished novel The Passionate Witch and Me), and the John Van Druten Broadway play Bell, Book and Candle that was adapted into a 1958 movie.

No one has ever questioned this text before. If you watch Bell, Book and Candle you can see the obvious direct inspirations. This is why I, for one, have never requested a source for these statements. I don't disagree that a source may be requested, but it should have been done so appropriately, by requesting a citation. Doing so out of spite is not the way to handle this. If no one objects, I will replace the text and anyone who wishes to add "citation needed" may do so. Njsustain (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I Married a Witch and Bell, Book and Candle are both mentioned in Herbie J Pilato's book as inspirations for the show. I'm not sure if he states it as a fact or not though (I don't currently have the book with me). Sol Saks also mentions the two movies on the E! True Hollywood Story episode about Bewitched and how they didn't have to worry about copyright since Columbia owned the films. There's more here: http://harpiesbizarre.com/solsaks.htm Mupept (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you mupept. I think that the source is reliable enough to at say that "It is reported that..." I will restore the text, later. I understand that if someone wants to claim another source is needed they can state so, but due to the nature of its deletion it should be replaced. Njsustain (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The material which I added to "Bewitched" was sourced. You deleted it. The material which I deleted was unsourced. I think one needs to be consistent here. If my material was deleted because the sourcing was "non-reliable" (your phrase), then clearly we need to delete material that is not sourced at all. The novel in question -- Conjure Wife -- is not just "about witches" (your phrase). It is a classic novel of fantasy about a world in which women are secretly witches; and it tells the story of a married couple in which the husband discovers the wife's secret and has to deal with it. That is very similar to the premise of "Bewitched". LyleHoward (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several differences in the sources and statements you are claiming are not being consistently used. First, your source was simply a random person giving an opinion on the similarities between the stories. The other source is reporting an interview with the creator of Bewitched, who says that those other sources were indeed his inspirations for the series. This is therefore a completely different situation. As a matter of which is a "reliable" source, that's not the point. The source you quoted, even if it were considered reliable, is clearly stating an opinion on the similarities, not facts. Harpie's Bizarre is stating a fact. There is no inconsistency. Njsustain (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Harpie's Bizarre is an unofficial fansite and shouldn't be used as a citation throughout the article anyway. However informative it may be, no fansite should be used as a source in any article on Wikipedia. I would go through and remove it as a citation as the article clearly isn't following policy, but there seems to be some "issues" regarding this article and I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about a 40+ year old show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.75.242 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be lectured to about WP rules by a sockpuppeter who doesn't even know how to sign his comments. You're obviously taking the removal of your poor addition personally and insulting long time dedicated editors by saying they are taking ownership of the articles is totally inappropriate. You have a right to question the reliability of sources, but not for the purpose of having a temper tantrum. If you would like to call in admins or have a request for comment on the issue, be my guest. Njsustain (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read and comprehend WP:AGF - I'm not a sockpuppet nor am I the editor you're currently in a tiff with. If you have issue with IP users (or any other user for that matter) chiming in on public talk pages, stop posting on talk pages. Additionally, you needn't let me know what I have the "right" to do. It's stated Wikipedia policy not to use unreliable sources such as an unofficial fansite like Harpie's Bizarre. There's no need whatsoever to "question" that. Long time editor or not, you're on here chiding others for things when all your ducks aren't in a row. Don't get your knickers in a twist because you got called on not following policy. I also don't need to contact an administrator or open up a request for comment about this issue though it would be interesting to see what other editors have to say about your issues regarding this article. 65.68.75.242 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me start by reminding everyone of WP:CIVIL. Don't let the conversation degrade to personal attacks because you simply disagree on a few points. Now let's see what WP:RS says: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Harpie's Bizarre qualifies as a questionable source because it appears to have no editorial oversight. Let's contrast this with unreliable sources, such as IMDb, which has been proved inaccurate time and again, especially for biographical data about stars. By contrast, we don't know how accurate Harpie's Bizarre is. But can it be used to cite this claim? That depends on whether the claim is contentious. From the discussion above, it appears that the claim itself is not contested. The other editors have pointed out that the claim had no source at all. Now a source is provided, and it's not cast as speculation or fan research, it's a direct quote from an interview with the creator. It seems to me that in this case, HB is reliable for this particular quote from the creator, and might be used to weakly source the claim, in lieu of another definitely reliable source. In this case, HB is not relying on rumors, and it is quoting the personal opinion of an involved party, the creator of the series. Since this is not a contentious claim, I suggest you cite this article, leave a comment in the wikitext that you acknowledge it is a poor source, and move on. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just read the article on Harpie's Bizarre, and it's even easier than that. The quote is not from an interview they did independently, it is from The E! True Hollywood Story: Bewitched. All that needs to be done is someone can find and watch that episode, and verify that he said that, and E! is automatically a reliable source that can be cited with cite episode. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Elizium23, WP:CIVIL is a fantastic catch-all guideline to cite but it's not all that practical to follow when certain editors come out of the gate with a bad attitude. I simply pointed out that a fansite isn't considered a reliable source to begin with and I get accused of sockpuppetry. Unless the accusing editor has proof of sockpuppetry (ie CU results), I believe that kind of unfounded accusation should be stricken out. Also, that kind of elitist and snotty attitude is not collegial. I do not believe pointing out that a source is unacceptable should be met with such a snotty attitude. It doesn't matter if I just started editing yesterday and never sign up for an account. Wikipedia is and probably always will be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If certain editors can't handle that other editors have the right to edit their little pet articles even if they don't want them to, they should find another site to lord over. As far as the content, a fansite is never a reliable source. Harpie's Bizarre is cited at least twice in this article and it should be removed entirely. Also, an unacceptable source should not be left in an article. The source should simply be removed, not left in with a note stating that it doesn't meet standards. If the quote is from an episode of whatever, the episode should be cited. 65.68.75.242 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your attitude or his attitude, and one of you should take it to WP:WQA because that is a good place for mud-slinging, not Talk:Bewitched. Civility is a policy which has a higher standard than guidelines, in fact, policies are the highest standard. In fact, civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.
 * As regards the source, your argument is moot because the actual reference is The E! True Hollywood Story: Bewitched. It should be verifiable to anyone who has access to a video of that episode. Apparently, it might even be available for $30 plus $5 shipping from a private seller. So I say to keep the source until someone with the episode steps forward, and then the episode itself can be cited.
 * As regards to removing sources from articles, WP:RS does not say that any source should be removed. It says Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. - the fact is not contentious, according to you, only the source is contentious, and WP:RS does not say to remove that source. It merely states that it is currently poorly sourced. Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If my argument is moot so is yours because basically said what you said to do without keeping the poor source. I don't think there should be a policy that says to remove poor sources because that should be common sense. What's the point of keeping a source that isn't considered reliable? It doesn't matter if the content is contentious or not. The source is crap and shouldn't be used here. As for you not caring about attitudes on here - don't jump into conversations attempting to reprimand others if you don't care. If you took two minutes to read through this talk page, you'll see that anyone who dares to improve the article or actually implement policy on it is met with a bad attitude and is quickly reverted. In short, there are bigger issues going on here than bad sources being used. That would be one of those pillars who refer to. 65.68.75.242 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:OAS: "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership..."
 * I will continue to revert any edits I feel are non-constructive, and will welcome constructive edits when they occur. That the former occur more than the latter simply means that it is a good, stable article, not that any of its stewards have bad attitudes. Njsustain (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal cause
The series' ratings declined after Dick York left, but that does not mean that his leaving was the cause of the decline. Stating that his leaving did cause the ratings to fall is a conclusion and/or opinion, not a fact, and cannot be included in an encyclopedic article. My opinion is that lazy writing and direction and lack of new stories was much more to blame, but in any case the change of actors cannot be stated as the cause in the WP article. Njsustain (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The tedious (and unreferenced) enumeration of the events surrounding Dick York's departure does not add to the article. There has been a systematic attempt to make this article and the List of Episodes article to revolve around Dick York's leaving the show. I'm sorry, but this article is about Bewitched, not about Dick York not being in Bewitched. This ongoing myopic focus on Dick York's departure unbalances the article. Please request other opinions or administrative input if you want to change the article to the "All about Dick York's departure from Bewitched" page. Your total lack of input into seasons 6-8 (not to mention spelling Dick Sargent's name wrong) shows your lack of a balanced view on the topic of this article. Maybe you should focus your efforts on the Dick York article instead. The discussion would be more appropriate there, as there would be little argument that York's notoriety is almost exclusively based on his work on Bewitched. Njsustain (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-NPOV isn't "factual"
As per a request, the edit I just undid was due to non-POV statements. Stating that characters have respect for one another, or that Dick York's absence was "ironic" are not "factual" statements. This isn't the Dick York fan site. Njsustain (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding non-factual information, although Maudie Prickett played a teacher in an earlier season episode, she was not Mrs. Peabody. That seemed to be more of a pre-school/day care center, not a grade school. Try to get the basic facts straight before leaping to judge the editing style of others. Njsustain (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pandora uncredited
How strange that Serena goes unmentioned in the 1972 episode credits. Thanks for noticing, Mupept. Njsustain (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actors playing McMann
I could easily be mistaken, but I thought that there was also an episode in which Charles Lane appeared as McMann. (I do realize he was seen one or more times in client roles.)Sillypillows (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, only the two actors cited in the articles played Mr. McMann. Njsustain (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Too bad
Too bad the copyright nazis have infiltrated this page, and Wikipedia. Don't know what they have against Bewitched in particular, but it is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.226.140 (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Syndication block with I Dream of Jeannie
I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention I Dream of Jeannie more. There were a lot of comparisons when they were both on, but whether it was TBS, Nick at Nite, Screen Gems, or now MeTV they're almost always put back to back, possibly more than any other unconnected pair of shows. Is there any writing that isn't mere speculation between the two, to explain why they're always together? It's not just the common plotline, virtually every popular show has had imitators, but they're rarely so commonly lumped into one package. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.90.15 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about Bewitched, not a study of 1960s sitcoms with magical blondes. In any case you would need third party references to add such information, even if were considered appropriate for the article. 68.199.97.145 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Endora's surname
While I concur with removing the reference to Endora's facetious name, "Mrs. Waters", from the main article, it still makes for good speculative trivia. In episode 1.34, "Remember the Main", Endora exposes corrupt local councilman John C. Cavanaugh by creating a massive flood from a supposedly sound water main. Cavanaugh's opponent, whom the Stephenses support, is Ed Wright. Late in the episode, Endora introduces herself to Wright as "Mrs. Waters", in reference to the main. While Bewitched could probably only be considered faithful to continuity of plot and to the "rules of magic" when compared to the other 1960s "magical" sitcom, I Dream of Jeannie, we may still speculate. Off-screen, the Stephenses probably remained active in local politics and civic affairs and thus ran into Wright at political and social functions. Wright (who after all, is a politician) might seek campaign contributions for higher office and ask Samantha if perhaps her Waters family is related to those wealthy Hyde Park Waterses. Or similar off-the-wall speculation. Anyway, it's theoretically possible that the name "Waters" spread throughout Morning Glory Circle and beyond. Or perhaps the speculative Sam tells Wright or the Kravitzes that Endora was just kidding about her name, and then changes the subject. The mind boggles. ;) --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * whether the meta-fictitious name referred to the plot point, the origin of the word Endora, both, or neither cannot be known, and in any case is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to this article, and totally disallowed in the talk section. This is not a forum for general discussion and this section should be deleted. I ask you to do so voluntarily. Njsustain (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Well..." In the Bewitched-universe, it's conceivable, at least, that the meta name became Endora's "real" surname, known to other in-universe characters. As such, it's as semi-valid to mention, IMO, as are Gilligan's Island's "Willy Gilligan", "Jonas Grumby", "Eunice Wentworth Howell" and "Roy Hinkley". So I don't think this little discussion is totally off the rails... With that, though, I have no more to add. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI all of those names, save "Willy," were indeed mentioned in the series, though very, very rarely. Njsustain (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if in fact CBS is actually doing a remake? If they were to do so, I think it would be FABULOUS! Any recent news on the subject? I am sure Njsustain knows something! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.77.91 (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was two years ago and there's been no news since. Unlikely anything came of it. 68.199.97.145 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Witch of Endor > Endora!
THAT'S A FACT! Böri (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know if this is a fact or not but it certainly doesn't belong in the "See also" section with an exclamation point. I could see adding it in the character description with a reliable source that says producers used that as an inspiration for the name but that's about it. Proclaiming something to be a fact does not make it so.  Pinkadelica ♣  08:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew it before... but now I saw that Witch of Endor article also says it: The mother of the witch Samantha on the TV sitcom Bewitched was named Endora. Regards, Böri (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with Pinkadelica's sentiment. Even if true that is not carte blanche to put it anywhere in any article. It has to be relevant as well as appropriate to the article, and be written appropriately, not with exclamation points sprinkled in due to your excitement in writing it. And that an unreferenced and less than convincing statement is made regarding the matter in another wikipedia article has nothing to do with anything. 68.199.97.145 (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * unreferenced??? The source is The Old Testament Böri (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the bible does not refer to any 1960s sitcoms. 68.199.97.145 (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Bori is saying Bewitched is referenced in the bible. It obviously isn't. The name Endor is however. That said, there still is no source that says producers used the Old Testament name as inspiration or a basis for the name Endora. They probably did but honestly, it's trivial at best and not even very interesting trivia. The fact that it is included in the Witch of Endor article also doesn't mean it should be included here (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I wouldn't be totally opposed to it being added if a reliable source is found but since that hasn't been provided (and no, the bible passage with the name is not enough to support the assertion that producers used that as the source of the name), there's really no need to continue debating this. It shouldn't be added as an afterthought in the "See Also" section nor should it be shoved in without a source.  Pinkadelica ♣  00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
An editor using multiple IP addresses has been changing the tense on the Bewitched article, contrary to the WP:MOS, by saying it "was" a show, etc., though of course the show still exists. The editor is being intentionally disruptive, as shown by this text he posted on my talk page:
 * "I am ONLY going to say this ONCE - so listen up. My CORRECTIONS are NOT "incorrect" NOR are they considered vandalism... you can reverse my edits for the next 25 YEARS. I (and now my friends) will reverse YOUR edits until the cows come home. STOP with your stupidness. We will NOT speak again. Ever."

If you see such edits please revert them. 69.117.133.237 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly agree that the other editor is being disruptive, but engaging in an edit war will get both of you blocked equally, so please reserve your comments to the content in question and do not make further reverts. I will seek page semi-protection to see if we can put an end to the anonymous IP edits for a while. Elizium23 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for some times. Anon, please engage in productive discussion on the talk page, disruptive editing and edit warring would only lead you to blocking on the project Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that reverting a disruptive edit was now considered "edit warring". WP-speak has diverged even further from English since I became mostly retired from this ever confounding community. Nevertheless I will cease doing such reversals. ETA: I can't help but consider this analogous to both students getting suspended from school when a bully beats up another kid. Just confirms that it was right for me to decide to spend very little time here compared to the amount I did years ago. 69.117.133.237 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about divergence, but your reaction is essentially like shouting "he started it!", taking your toys and going home. Now I have dealt for years and thousands of edits against all kinds of disruptive editors, and I'm sorry that only one editor on one article should drive you away from editing like this, but I would counsel you to try and have a thicker skin for this kind of abuse, and try to solve problems maturely and civilly. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your counsel is neither required nor useful. The problems the frequent editors and administrators have caused with their arrogance and ignorance over the years go far beyond a juvenille vandal on the Bewitched article. The owner himself was involved in a particular lengthy dispute involving hundreds of administrators and tens of thousands of man-hours of debate. Regarding this piddly little issue, I was simply commenting for my own reflection, and your last response only further confirms the accuracy of my judgement of the poor culture which determines how WP is run. I thank you for your stewardship of this article, but sanctimonious advice and attempts to blame those who are pointing out problems are neither mature nor civil, and promotes a continued culture which gives wikipedia the reputation of little more than a third rate collection of arbitrary facts. Perhaps you could use some of your own counsel when editors who are trying to improve articles prove to be an inconvenience to you. 69.117.133.237 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I or A
While the letter A was used in Tabitha's name on a couple occasions the I was used much more often and in the spinoff series. For a more about this see the discussion here Talk:List of Bewitched characters. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sets
It's unclear sometimes in the sets section whether the exterior or interior of the house is being referred to. Also, it seems to me watching the show that there are many episodes where it seems Tabitha doesn't even exist. There's no mention of a babysitter when going out or over to somebody's house to eat, for example. Hackwrench (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Stephens/s'/es/es'/etc.?
This is interesting: "When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the Grays, etc.When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, we form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes, the Rodriguezes. Do not form a family name plural by using an apostrophe; that device is reserved for creating possessive forms.

"When a proper noun ends in an "s" with a hard "z" sound, we don't add any ending to form the plural: "The Chambers are coming to dinner" (not the Chamberses); "The Hodges used to live here" (not the Hodgeses). There are exceptions even to this: we say "The Joneses are coming over," and we'd probably write "The Stevenses are coming, too." A modest proposal: women whose last names end in "s" (pronounced "z") should marry and take the names of men whose last names do not end with that sound, and eventually this problem will disappear." from http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm

So... ????? "Stephens's" is definitely no good, and it's not definitely "Stephenses" because of the "z" sound and could make it the exception "Stephens". But the writer of this article said there are exceptions to THAT exception, and that "we'd probably write "Stevenses" ", but that's hardly definitive. Who knew this would be such an edge of the knife situation? No wonder people have been going back and forth.

Unfortunately, I don't see any way to say definitely one way or the other. One person has a right to change it one way, and another has a right to change it the other way. Proposals to decide on a consistent standard for the Bewitched articles? I think I plan to just walk away from this hornets nest (hornet's nest?, hornets' nest?) I've now created. Sorry. Njsustain (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I didn't realize the article had been changed when I did my revert to "Stephenses". The last time I had checked, the article was all "Stephenses" and "Kravitzes" throughout for plurals (and "Stephenses'"/"Kravitzes'" for possessive plurals). Some months ago, I made them that way, since it had been inconsistent throughout the article. At the time I did a Google search on pluralizing last names, although doing it again now, I see there's not total consensus. I think it's most important that it's consistent throughout the article, and that apostrophes are only used to denote possessives. I personally feel that using just "the Stephens" as the plural sounds weird (like saying "We're going to visit the Smith" instead of "the Smiths", but I realize what I find weird doesn't make it so! Mupept (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As a Stephens myself, my family uses "Stephenses" as a plural. Bill Stephens Bill S. (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's Have A Drink; Do You Want A Drink?; Come On In And Have A Drink; Boy, Do I Need A Drink!
Is there any references out there that elude to, or describe this show's effect on the alcohol industry, if any? The reason I ask is because the one most enduring and indelible memory I have of this show is contained in my title of this section. Was this show ever originally sponsored by a liquor company or one of it's holdings? If so, I think a reference to any such sponsorship should appear somewhere in this article. Contrarily, if there was not any such sponsorship, was there something going on in the general social atmosphere at the time of this show's production that may explain or could have prompted so many scenes where the characters shared or fixed themselves a cocktail? And before anyone gets the idea that I am kidding, let me assure you that I am not. This is a serious question that has been rolling around in my mind for many years, given the show's numerous references to drinking alcoholic beverages. 70.161.169.134 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New cast/characters table
I adapted this cast/characters table used on the Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy pages. It needs some code clean-up probably, and it need some coloring every other character row, but I can't figure out how to get that to work. I'm also not sure if it's too detailed to only be sourced with IMDb. Thoughts?

Mupept (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite a table. Very... um... thorough. Maybe put it in the Bewitched Characters article.


 * Per MOS:TVCAST, episode counts should not be listed for each character. Please consider converting this into a Main characters table instead. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created the characters table and removed the episode counts one. If you think there should be a recurring characters table, you're welcome to create one, but the main one is good enough for now. I can see if I can fashion this into a recurring table. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the recurring table. Please check it out at the List of Bewitched characters list, see if I got the guest and recurring spots listed properly. The rows need to be sorted according to first appearance in the series. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Supernatural-themed sitcoms
Hi, User:MarnetteD - looking for some insight from you and other editors. Lead makes the statement “longest-running supernatural-themed sitcom of the 1960s–1970s.” Trying to give some context and relevance to this by showing examples of the competition that this show has supposedly outperformed. That’s where I thought “See also” might be a way to do that.

If examples are not relevant, perhaps the statement should be cut? Does not appear to have any further discussion in the body of the article, the norm when a “fact” has been deemed important enough and descriptive enough of the subject to warrant mention in the lead. Thoughts?Jmg38 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Is that statement backed up by a news source later? Or is it a synthesis made by the editor? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Scoured through the article. No other discussion, no other source, this is a one-off statement in the lead. Adjusted it to supportable - and "highlightable" - fact regarding ratings hit for first 5 seasons. Jmg38 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your ping . If there is no sourced info the claim should be removed. I think your edit makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to look into this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Cultural references?
There were a few cultural references made during the show's run. One of the most famous was Endora making a marijuana reference in the episode, "Tabitha's Weekend," by asking Phyllis if her cookies were from an Alice B. Toklas recipe. Toklas was famous for a cookbook that contained a recipe for hashish brownies. ~Bill Stephens Bill S. (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Social media
Bewithed has the Official Instagram Account instagram.com/BewitchedSerial/ can you add this in Wikkipedia and Google please. Egzonakrs (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌, no confirmation by Sony or Mill Creek that they're rolling out social media like that. Twitter account is not even confirmed. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)