Talk:List of Charmed episodes/Archive 1

Photos
If you find quality photos of the episodes please upload them to Wikipedia, so that each episode can be represented by a photo. Preferably a square photo (e.g. 280x280).

Right now for Seasons 5-8 the picture on this page is the same on the individual episode pages. If someone can upload better (square) pics it would probably look better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.62.91.130 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, thank you for your work in converting Seasons 5-8 to the tabled format. It looks fantastic.  Secondly, I agree that there needs to be smaller and more appropriate images...thankfully, the existing ones aren't *too* bad, and thus will work in the interum.  If I can ever find some free time, I'll work on this.  Quite a job, though, watching dozens and dozens of episodes looking for the right scene ;)  --  Huntster  T • @ • C 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings
This column has little value, and seems to fall under the rule against indiscriminate data. It is also very difficult to verify through some official means after so long. Unless there is some reasonable objection, I'm going to remove this in a few days. (wow, that ought to be fun...) -- Huntster  T • @ • C 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support that remove. And by "support" I mean I'll agree with you, not that I'd help you do it. ;-) Enjoy yourself! --Maelwys 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh gee, thanks :P heh. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Season 9
Charmed? Is there a 9th season? Because the story doesn't end there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.240.252 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does end at Season 8. This season 9 is nothing more than a fan project, and does *not* belong here or anywhere else in Wikipedia. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 06:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Is there any possibility that someone who cares about Charmed would like to add an opening line of context into each article about an episode - as I've done here. Currently there is no context, the articles launch straight into a spoiler warning and a description of the events in the episode, without the reader having a clue as to whether this is a book, play, film, TV show &c. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * It was better before the infoboxes were added. Ill start working on them in my spare time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

THERE'S MISSING ONE EPISODE!
There's missing the episode in which a waitress of the P3, I think her name's Abby, tries to become Prue and wants to kill her. I don't remember to which season that episode belonged, but of course must be either season two or three. Thank you!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.143.30.68 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the episode "Sight Unseen", and the girl's name is Abbey. It's definitely included :) --  Huntster  T • @ • C 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Title Changes
Some idiot has changed some of the titles of the episodes and linked them to other pages can someone chnage them back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.202.236 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I think somes just changed everything back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exokadin (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 April 2007  (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted all the recent vandalism. It should be back to normal. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD covers
Would having the 8 DVD covers on the page qualify under the fair-use laws? It's keeping the number of images to a minimum. All we'd need really would be a fair-use rational. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, even with a fair use rationale it would only be decorative on this page. See Non-free content criteria #8. Garion96 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For more opinions you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT DOES THE TATTOO ON PHEOBE'S NECK STAND FOR?

Viewers
Are there any sources for the number of viewers? I think we need to add some before someone comes along and removes them for not having a source. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Single episodes
I plan on redirecting these per WP:EPISODE soon. Information from multiple secondary sources must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Single plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. I suggest Wikia and tv.com as alternate venues for this information. TTN 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on the redirects until something can be done to salvage the material (I'll port to Wikia when I have time, and Malevious has some ideas of his own). -- Huntster  T • @ • C 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can just take them from the history if it's necessary. TTN 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not give editors time to expand articles. Consensus among TV editors seems to be to expand and clean up these articles instead of outright getting rid of them all. Why don't all you people who are blatantly going around redirecting articles get off your butts and help expand them. RS can be found if people would take the time to look for them. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody will ever actually improve them. Even after AfDs, people are all set with summaries. You cannot not expand something if sources don't exist. This is true for most episodes of most shows. Only certain episodes are ever notable, and only one or two shows are constant with sources. Looking for them won't make them exist. TTN 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incase you haven't noticed, sources do exist for these articles. A user pointed that out at the last afd for a disney show. If a disney show has sources Charmed defiantly has some out there. You aren't a regular editor to the charmed articles so you don't know the media coverage it has. I've seen sources before and I'll find em again if i have to. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources Fisher gave were trivial, and didn't make the article better. Some sources may exist, but it will never be enough to cite whole sections. If you prove me wrong, that is great; it can only help the site. Though, you most likely cannot actually find real sources. TTN 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, my mind skipped over the "redirect" part and inserted "delete". Histories are fine. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should keep the single episodes. It's really interesting to read about the trivia, because you can't find it anywhere else. Could you please put it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.142.209 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. They violate Wikipedia rules. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection of episodes?
The episodes "I've Got You Under My Skin (Charmed episode)", "Something Wicca This Way Comes", and "Thank You for Not Morphing" are currently AfD'ed, maybe a couple more. Judging from the above discussion, no-one cared to improve them in the last half a year, nor were there many people participating in the discussion. Depending on the outcome of the AfDs, can I redirect any episodes that don't establish notability? They can be resurrected if someone wants to work on a particular episode article. – sgeureka t•c 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, indeed. There was a proliferation of in-universe content related to Charmed - I think some "spells" even had their own article. But there is a general failure to assert notability here and an LOE is the best solution. Also, the character pages need to be redirected to a single list of characters. (cf. Talk:Prue_Halliwell#Notability). Eusebeus (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't the right reason to keep them, but I really like that there is a sepreate article for each episode... I definatly enjoy them and I see that somebody worked hard on all of them. If there is anyway to keep them (maybe even by combining them by season or something?) I really wish we could. I think that there generally is something notable about each one. There's a lot of information in these articles about continuity, guest stars (which there are certainly many) appearance of certain villans, powers, good guys and so forth. It seems encyclopedic to me, the manner which they are presented.

I figured I should at least weigh in and give my oppinion. I really don't see why all of these articles need to be deleted.

208.53.104.68 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000


 * Thanks for weighing in. The problem is that there is a near-complete lack of relevant sources for these articles...they are mostly just information taken from the episodes themselves.  If people would stop AfDing them and set up redirects to this page, the histories would still be there for those people interested, and would allow someone to migrate the data to the Wikia site or someplace else. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didn't see that some episode descriptions are AfD so my opinion comes much too late, but:
 * Why do you delete single episodes? That seems to me very, very ... weird. If you think that episode descriptions don't meet the quality standards of wikipedia anymore, delete all episodes (and write at least season summaries instead). But deleting single ones ... why? This seems to me senseless. It sounds more like someone (no, I don't know who) wants to harp on about principles instead of really improving wikipedia.
 * BTW, do you really delete articles after a poll result of 2:2:1? To me it looks like an equality of votes rather than a majority! &mdash; Tauriel-1 ( ☎ ) 18:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by "do you really delete articles" or "why do you delete single episodes"; I'm not an administrator, and have no power whatsoever to delete anything. In any case, yes, there is a significant number of editors who would love to see all episode articles deleted, and after seeing how badly...truly horrifically...some of these articles have been written, I admit I'm falling into that crowd myself.  Let other websites deal with the details of episodes, we can provide a synopsis, which is what most people will need.
 * Back on topic, the fact is that most episode articles do fail the verifiability and notability policies: their only source is the episode, and no third party sources are either available or have been provided. Some people will say "who cares, keep 'em all", but that is policy and we should follow it.  Some episodes do deserve their own articles...the series premier, series finale, perhaps a top-rated episode, etc, so long as sources can be provided.
 * As for the poll result, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. These polls are merely a space where editors can expound the positives and negatives of various topics, and raise points that other may not have considered.  Ultimately it is up to the closing admin to determine whether the article meets or fails certain criteria, and in this case, he/she was within their rights to make this decision. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The AfD result was quite obvious, there hasn't been improvement as per, and helpful anti-merge comments are also lacking. Nevertheless, I've added an "official" merge template and will wait for one more week before I go ahead with the merge/redirect for any episode articles (other then the pilot episode) that don't meet WP:EPISODE (there has been seven months to improve them after all). If you want me to leave a handful of articles intact so that you can work on them, please say so. Merged/redirected articles can be resurrected any time but only when they reasonably meet WP:EPISODE. Any other uncommented article resurrections are likely to be reverted to a redirected state or risk getting deleted (for real). – sgeureka t•c 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it. While some articles may theoretically be kept for different reasons, none of them I've seen have met those criteria.  Even the premiers and finales don't really warrant being kept, though if someone wants to work on them in the future they can do so.  Just remember that when redirecting, it may be best to leave the Charmed episodes category intact, so the redirects can continue to be tracked via the link you gave above.  It will be a big task, redirecting them all and then fixing the double redirects that pop up. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The pilot episode survived the AfD in an almost straight keep, so I'll leave it alone (someone else can revisit this issue in a few months). As this won't be my first major episode (merge)/redirect task, I don't anticipate any difficulties. Good advive on the category, still, I'll leave it untouched as long as at least some ep articles "survive". I guess I'll do the episodes in several sessions divided into a few days, but I'll still wait the one week before I begin as to avoid "I-wasn't-properly-warned---revert!!!" panic reactions, or at least justify swift revert-reverts then. – sgeureka t•c 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I think I wasn't clear and was misunderstood, but I meant leaving the category intact on the redirect pages themselves, so that any future changes can be tracked (such as people recreating episode pages or reverting these redirects. Don't worry about it for pages that have already been dealt with (I'll make a run back through and replace them), just don't remove the cat from future redirections.  Cheers! — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone reverts, the categorization would be "active" again and you can see the revert in RecentChanges. Furthermore, the articles would show up in Category:Charmed episodes again (which will/should be rather empty after the redirection procedure). If someone tries to be sneaky and revert and leave the category out, he'd get problems with uncategorized soon. Also, someone could sneakily remove the category from the redirects. In any case, reverting would not remain unnoticed for long. I don't think there is much to be gained by leaving the category intact, but okay, we should be constant. – sgeureka t•c 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Valid concerns, but it won't really be a problem. Redirects will show up as italicised in the Category, and actual articles can be found through this page just as easily.  Also, while the bots do a decent job of tagging things, they cannot be relied upon to perform all tasks.  It may take a month or more for them to crawl to and tag an uncategorised article, though this is likely a borderline worst-case scenario. To revise my wording, I don't think that people reverting the redirect will be the biggest problem...I'm more concerned with those that will find the redirect and try to write something from scratch.  I'll leave it to you though, as this was just a recommendation.  Once you finish the redirects, I'll run AWB or something and fix what double redirects I can find (numerous due to the effort to remove the "(Charmed episode)" modifier from article names where possible, an occurrence I still find to be a bad idea). — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never seen it that way, and keeping the categories intact makes much sense now, so I'll do that. And, having already started with Season 5, I fixed all double redirects this morning and there were many, so you getting them fixed with AWB later is probably a better idea. – sgeureka t•c 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with leaving the category is that people will want to do it with other series, which won't end up being pretty. There is a way to sort of create a watchlist as a subpage, so you could list all of the pages there. TTN (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:List of Charmed episodes/Watchlist should serve the purpose of keeping them in check pretty well. You'll just need to add the ones that have already been redirected, and the redirects if you wish. TTN (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So now there are three ways that would work, and we only need to decide on one, and I'll wait so long. I have used such watchlists for my own interests in my userspace and have made very good experiences with them. So if for example Huntster and me (or whoever else cares about wikipedia's real-world-content mission) watchlist this watchlist, then TTN's suggestion is the easiest, quickest, and allows the least "abuse". Huntster, what do you think? – sgeureka t•c 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fantastic, thanks TTN. Yes, this watchlist is absolutely the best method...I'm sorry I didn't think of it in the first place.  We can remove the cats from the redirects a bit later. Hooray for simplicity. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

← I suppose it should additionally be discussed exactly which episode articles are allowed to remain. I suggest four: "Something Wicca This Way Comes" (series premier), "All Hell Breaks Loose" (nearly the series finale, and exit of Doherty), "Charmed Again" (entrance of McGowan; suggest merging parts 1 and 2 into single article), and "Forever Charmed" (series finale). One additional that may be notable, but would need significant work, is "Chris-Crossed", given that it was rather unique and was the highest rated of the 'modern episodes'. Thoughts? — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can just grab a couple of quick sources for each of those episodes, leaving them for at least a good while will be fine. TTN (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I redirected "Chris-Crossed" yesterday because I didn't check this talkpage, and because the article looked as "bad" as the other ep articles. If you can cut the unsourced and/or in-universe trivia and add a few sources like TTN mentioned, I don't see a problem with keeping the article for a little while longer. – sgeureka t•c 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I don't care if they are all removed. I just thought leaving a few behind based on defined criteria might assuage those who will scream and shout over the articles disappearing.  Personally don't care to put much effort into these monstrosities. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All but the pilot and the final episode are redirected now. The remaining two episodes got a notability and merge tag and can/should be reconsidered in one or two months. Category:Charmed episodes still exists and I am also going to leave it alone; I have have no preference what happens with it. Note to the people trying to get the articles back: Please don't revert the redirects. The redirected articles failed to establish WP:NOTABILITY, and reverting still does not prevent this failure. I (and probably some others) will be keeping an eye on the Charmed episodes for a while, so the reverts would be noticed anyway. If you can however improve an article by trimming the plot and unsourced trivia and instead add a non-trivial production and reception section like e.g. The One Where No One's Ready (Friends episode), which just barely establishes notability, the article has a good change to stand on its own. See WP:EPISODE for more ideas for good episode articles. – sgeureka t•c 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to "fix" each Charmed episode article, by trimming the trivia section, leaving only important facts. And shortening the summary. --JYoung3 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't a matter of simple removing a few things in order to fix the articles. There are no real sources and no third-party assertion of notability (the episode isn't notable just because it is an episode).  Premiers and finales are, by consensus, inherently notable, but all others must have supporting information.  Please don't continue down this particular route. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * JYoung3, as I explained on your talk page, if you can "fix" some of these articles (most likely season premiers and finales), you can do so, but it will not be an easy task. Internet reviews are sometimes hard to get by, but audio commentaries, companion books and official fan magazines sometimes have something usable. I advice you to not work one more than two articles at a time, and if they are acceptable, they can certainly stay. The sticking point is always the sources you use. – sgeureka t•c 12:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we've gotten rid of all the episode pages and this list is rather long, might I suggest separating this page by season? We could either give each season its own page or combine some (season 1-2, 3-4, etc.) Something like List of Bleach episodes would look nice. As in removing episode summaries from this page and putting them on the season pages and having only episode title and airdate on this page. (and director and such if you want). And if you want you can have a short summary of the entire season like the Bleach list does. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 08:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No opposition from me. But if this is just done to expand the plot summaries in the new season pages, I strongly encourage this episode list to be improved first (i.e. addition of writer and director). For a good idea what a season page can do, see Smallville (Season 1). If you want to be a little more lowscale with little work, see e.g. Smallville (Season 3). – sgeureka t•c 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather like the format of the 24 series of articles, e.g., 24 (season 1), etc. I also agree that the Smallville season 1 article is very nice, with lots of citations proving real-world notability.  However, it seems Charmed never really got such press throughout its run.  If our articles could not be made to reach such levels, I'd suggest not doing it at all and maintaining this article as-is.  If an attempt is to be made, make it in userspace so it can be determined whether or not to actually go forward with the idea before putting it "live".  First though, as Sgeureka mentioned, make this article the best it can be before tackling a major new project. My personal opinion is that this article is sufficient. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Season Five Link Errors
It seems that all of the season five links simply redirect back to the List of Charmed episodes. Artemisboy (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See above? *grin* — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The irritating thing is...
When you try to look up a specific episode on Google to find information, the first or second link is always to an episode summary on Wikipedia... that no longer exists. There's got to be some better standard for so-called "notability" because 14th century lawyers no one has ever heard of or could possibly give a damn about are "notable" yet a synopsis of a highly popular TV show that has aired in the last ten years, has enough episodes to be syndicated, and has a large fanbase is not? What's next - Wikipedia editors removing episodic entries for Heroes, Doctor Who, Monk and E.R.? Who gets to decide what's "notable" and what's not? What makes an Elvis Presley single from the 1960's more notable than an episode of Charmed from 5 years ago? Who gets to say? Consensus or committee, administrator or editor, or just someone with an axe to grind who thinks popular TV shows aren't "notable." 68.229.184.37 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Charmed is obviously notable, so it got its own article: Charmed (TV series). The episodes as a group are obviously notable, so they got their own article as a group: List of Charmed episodes. There is currently no proof that individual seasons of Charmed are notable, but they probably are. You can start such articles: Charmed (season 1), ..., Charmed (season 8). No episode can claim obvious notability without offering proof, but there is reasonable claim for the pilot and final episode (Something Wicca This Way Comes, Forever Charmed), so they have articles. Hope that helps. – sgeureka t•c 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to anon that we are currently discussing the validity of creating individual season articles above, so it may be a good idea to wait for that discussion to pan out before progress is made on that front. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand why the articles were moved, I am wondering if anyone knows where the information can be found elsewhere there is talk of "redirection" I just didn't read where I should be redirected to. Any information would be appreciated. 75.51.145.71 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several ways and I'll list the steps: Go Talk:List of Charmed episodes/Watchlist (which has a list of all the old episode names), click on an episode (which will redirect you to the episode list), scroll up and click on the episode's name again right under the List's name (says redirected from [episode]), click on the history tab right on the top and click on the last date before the redirect. Finished. – sgeureka t•c 09:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Important Episodes
Not all of the episodes need their own article, but some should. Examples:


 * Something Wicca This Way Comes -- series premiere
 * All Hell Breaks Loose -- Departure of Shannen Doherty
 * Brain Drain -- tied with "All Hell Breaks Loose" and "Charmed and Dangerous" as highest-rated episodes
 * Charmed and Dangerous
 * The Day the Magic Died -- Wyatt's birth
 * It's a bad,bad,bad,bad world part 2 -- Chris's birth/Chris died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.52.226 (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Centennial Charmed -- 100th episode/departure of Julian McMahon
 * The Seven Year Witch -- 150th episode
 * Kill Billie Vol. 2 -- part 1 of series finale
 * Forever Charmed -- part 2 of sereis finale

If you can think of any other, just add them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipkid292 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not so much a question what articles should exist, but what articles editors are willing to write. Check out the existing episode articles at List of Friends episodes for an impression what episode articles should at least look like to fulfill notability and style guidelines. Television episodes gives other/better examples what wikipedia strives for. – sgeureka t•c 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why "Desperate Housewives" can have an article for every single episode,and not Charmed...i remember before,there was an article for each episode for charmed....i was shocked when they were all deleted... :(     i think its not fair.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.73 (talk • contribs)


 * Rest assured that Desperate Housewives will also have their episode articles reviewed for justification at some point in the future. – sgeureka t•c 08:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Charmed Episodes Hyperlinks
you know when i check the page thats called "charmed episodes" the hyperlinks dont work to give you more detail if you know what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.119.70 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean, but if you are referring to the "missing" episode articles, see the few threads above. – sgeureka t•c 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

are you kidding with the changes???
sb has changed every episode since season 3 and invented that prue is still allive and changed every i mean EVERY episode how can we revert it??? Lucia (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bite Me redirect
I got to this page by searching the phrase "Bite Me", in order to find its etymology. The phrase is unrelated to this show, and should not redirect here, or anywhere for that matter, if it does not have a dedicated article. Could someone more capable than myself maybe correct this? 83.70.178.165 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is very curious. I'll work on turning this into a disambiguation page for the various articles which use "Bite Me" in their titles. Thanks for the heads-up. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, btw. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WHY?
I have a question. Why did you delete each episode page? What was the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JYoung3 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because they were non-notable in the context of an encyclopaedia, and they were unsourced by anything other than the episodes themselves. The series premiere and finale are generally considered to be notable in their own right. Television series across the website are being handled in a similar way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * ✅, and excuse me. Replaced with free Logo same as that of the image. I forgot about that narrow interpretation, which I consider arguable. That logo is probably better used here with these episode synopses, than in the series article. // Fra nkB 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article split into subpages
Last fall there (is ample evidence) the many separate articles for each episode in the eight seasons of the Charmed television series were shoe-horned in a half-assed manner into one inadequate |list article. One and two lines of synopses are wholly inadequate to describe the synopsis of any episode, and such blurbs are unencyclopediaic so badly need expansion.


 * Early efforts in this respect have shown (the unsplit page is warning it is over 150 kbytes) a definite need to split the article as subpages by season.


 * Other articles in the original work came under fire for other organizational improvements, such as merging pages, some of which has preceded this message or occurred during the last month.

These subpages are named to form the series links:




 * Additionally, I have created several typing-aid templates :as an aid to writing about the series in a less in-universe style that is more encyclopediaic:
 * 1) Book of Shadows -- automatically pipetricks and links to Book of Shadows (Charmed), not Book of Shadows, but of course looking like the latter (pipetricked) link.
 * 2)  or  (other characters, including villains) where both variations form the proper section links with pipetricking into the comprehensive list article: List of Charmed characters (which is ordered alphabetically)
 * 3)  is proving very useful. Given a second argument it makes various types of links. If that is either "c" or 'e', a link is made that suffixes " (Charmed)" or "Charmed episode" respectively. If {{{2}} is otherwise defined, it merely makes a link... so   gives the link: Charmed Again (Part 1)
 * 4) other templates are listed in  under 'T', but there are two for heading/ending the subpages:
 * 5) Charmed episodes subpage beginning should be given as:
 * 6) Charmed episodes subpage end should be given as:     ... need tacked into any subpages produced so they can act as articles for someone browsing using random pages. I'll work some nav links into the first one soon.
 * 7) Prodded by some discussion and evaluation, I looked into how the episode articles got turned into redirects and to my disgust and non-surprise, it was some overly zealous editors failing to leave well enough alone and overly focusing on the rules about secondary sources... Consequently, I reinstated episodes at the end of season's three and beginning of four, as well as the first and last of the series, as transitional episodes are inherently notable. Certainly the difference between season 3 and season 4 in the cast, writing philosophy, and crew will have generated articles somewhere, so someone do up some cites in those please!

Questions... // Fra nkB 17:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be split. — The Le ft orium  16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (more template news)

Separate Article For Episodes (inc. them on list of episodes of course)
There should be separate articles for episode articles many series have done it, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel and The CSI Franchise. Anyone agree?
 * I'm gonna have to say no (unless you can find any production information). — The Le ft orium  20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah i can find SOME production information, i cant say for all episodes unless the site i have found requires all of that and if i can i'll post here and see if anyone changes there mind. Pic Editor960 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Colors
The page is becoming quite colorful and I like the ambitiousness of the changes. I would, howver, like to point you to Color to ensure that the various colors won't hinder some color-blind readers from being able to clear read the page. I'm not saying it will, but I encourage you to check. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That 70's Episode (Redirect)
That 70's Episode should redirect to the That 70's Show Episodes, or a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.202.152 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Charmed (season 5) and Charmed (season 6)
Quite odd all that stuff in article namespace. If it's the merger/redirects that created such pages, would it be possible to reverse these? The current format looks like a series of articles one after the other. -- User:Docu

LOE page and Season pages
Ok, what the hell happened to all of these pages? It looks like someone simply dumped dozens of separate pages into one location, and now it's all chaotic. I assume, based on the notes I saw on the front of the season pages that there was some merge discussion and all of the episode articles were merged (literally) into one central location?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See my note above .. -- User:Docu
 * I had redirected all episode articles except the pilot and finale in January 2008 per the lack of established notability and a few AfD results. Until December 2008, the page kept its basic layout, but User:Fabartus felt the plot summaries are not sufficient and wanted to start season articles (this is his good right, and Charmed appears to be notable enough to be able to support season articles). Fabartus hasn't really edited since March 12 though, but it's not clear if he believes the season articles to be okay, if he lost interest or if he is just on vacation. – sgeureka t•c 20:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the season pages would look better like this. — The Le ft orium  20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on, but if you look at season 5 and 6 (I didn't look at the others) you'll see what I'm talking about. I have class right now, and an FAC (feel free to come comment on) that I'm copy editing for, but, if people would like as soon as I get some free time (if someone doesn't beat me to it) I'll clean up the pages to be more in line with WP:MOSTV.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What the heck....that's just...OMG, there are no words! At its length, yeah, maybe Charmed could support season pages, but they need to be REAL seasoned pages, not this mess. Someone, please fix this mess. Either by merging into one normal episode list, or reformatting all of these into proper season pages (see current FL ones for guidance). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, AnmaFinotera gave me a good laugh; there really are no words to describe this! :D Anyways, I was literally coming here to say the same thing a few days ago, but decided not to for no good reason. I tried cleaning up the pages several times, mainly because the pages look like they come from a Wikia, but Fabartus kept on reverting me, so I gave up. Really, to fix these pages would take a long time; I suggest we just revert back to one of the early revisions of the page, when the summaries were nice and short. (Just check out one of the early revisions of season 5 to see what I mean, 1. Unfortunately, the table formatting isn't too hot great, but it's good enough for now.}  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed...these will probably all be best served reverting to cleaner older versions. If Fabartus ctoninues acting against consensus, appropriate measures will need to be taken. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The various episodes stood as separate articles before. Articles that, at least, looked much cleaner than the current composite.-- User:Docu
 * Obviously, this was not a better option either. All of the lists need to be redone. Cleaning the format itself is, for the most part, something easily done with some offline tools. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The transclusion of season boilerplate complicated things further. I removed this for now. 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC) -- User:Docu
 * I have TfDed this template for several reasons, see Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 2. – sgeureka t•c 09:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is that urgent. Unless its content can be included into one article, I'd rather move it into talk namespace or in the authors user namespace. -- User:Docu
 * The template wasn't TfDed for urgency. I just think such a template is a poor idea to begin with. Charmed already seems to have all the relevant content, so no info would be lost by deleting this template. – sgeureka t•c 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is beyond unnecessary and encourages bad articles, from what I can see. Each season article should be rewritten for that season, not just copy/pasting from each other. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Page for each episode
I think that a page for every episode of Charmed would be a good idea since this site doesn't like the long and essessively detailed description of each episode on the season's pages in question. But I don't know if that would work on not. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.51.18 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Overt Error in intro
re: The following is the episode list for the 178 episodes that aired in the eight-year run of Warner Brothers television series Charmed, created by executive producer and head writer Constance M. Burge, with creative oversight by executive producer Brad Kern alongside Holly Marie Combs during its entire run. The series began on October 7, 1998, and finished on May 21, 2006.
 * Constance M. Burge effectively left the series in the end of the third season for other endeavors; she was carried on the credits thereafter as technical consultant but that was a polite fiction to honor her contract. Brad Kern, who'd been almost the co-head writer, being the big boss of the project assumed the role of head writer thereafter until the final season.
 * The Actress that played Prue, Shannen Doherty didn't want to stay on show because of Burge's departure, and because her role was seen as too central and they were planning to write bigger roles for Holly Marie and Alysia Milano to balance out the plotlines. It is arguably the worst move she could have made in her career, but we can't say that here.
 * Combs did not have any role as producer until the fourth season, as a sop to keep her from following Doherty, who'd gotten her the role and was a close friend. She also got 'premium' billing in the title credits as part of the deal to stay with the attempt to keep the series alive with the re-launch via a half-sister.
 * I could go on, but someone needs to go back to the all the text in 2007 when we split the article (Search my sig for a date in the above) and 'especially restore the accuracy' of the lead's text with accurate sentence construction&mdash;the editor or editors who shortened the text quoted above, have changed the meaning of the lead paras, and  written fiction. I assume good faith, but this lead as written now has become highly inaccurate. // Fra nkB  04:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)