Talk:Charmed/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Charmed. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Archives from February 2008 to March 2008
Episode Guide
What happened to the episode guide? It was here a few weeks ago, and now I can't access anything aside from the first ever episode. I really hope it hasn't been deleted, as that would suck for those people who put in so much work to put it all together with the plot summary and trivia and stuff. And, if it has been deleted, why?! What reason could there be for deleting something as valuable as the episode guide? I love coming here to check out each episode as I watch them on my DVDs- it's fun to read the trivia.Socalledboothy (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has been a long debated issue across Wikipedia, and it is generally determined that episodes should not have their own articles unless notability can be exemplified by certain means. Normally this is when multiple non-trivial, verifiable sources can be located for the subject matter (this is a policy of Wikipedia) or the episode represents something specific...in the case of Charmed, these are the series premier and finale, as these are generally considered automatically notable. Things are underway to improve coverage of episodes on Wikipedia through these new standards, so just give it a little time. Charmed isn't the only topic or television show affected. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So what happened to all the hard work that people did on creating each episode page? Did it get like copied onto some other hard drive to be put back once whatever rules are finally improved? I don't know. I just still don't see the point in deleting all of that because of a silly rule. Each episode page was done extremely well. I just don't like it.Socalledboothy (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- No offense, but the episode articles were about as far below 'extremely well' policy-wise as it was possible to get. No sourcing aside from the episode itself; tremendous amounts of trivia which, though entertaining to read, is not encyclopaedic; and borderline fair-use violations in the form of extremely long summaries (which became less summaries and more blow-by-blow guides). They were sort of pretty to look at, but were in no way deserving of individual articles. Just so you know, the articles are still there in the page histories if you care to look at them, but do not restore them. Also be aware that there is a Charmed Wikia site located at http://charmed.wikia.com, which is the most appropriate place for detailed material to go. Each episode should be documented there. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly couldn't care less if it was "far below" in regards to wikipedia policy. It was fun to read, what with all the spells, enemies, and episode trivia; that's all I care about. And I saw your post on the Episode Guide page, so I am reading the trivia that way as I watch the Season 2 and Season 3 episodes on DVD. But I always kinda liked having the actual page rather than a stripped down version. And I think for something like this, just the episode itself should be enough. A lot of long-running TV shows don't have tons of sources available for every single episode (I mean, if we only went by that, the only complete episodes we'd have on here would be The Simpsons and Friends, and that would just suck for people who want to read about OTHER TV shows they like), but it's something fun to read anyway. That's why I come to wikipedia- for something fun to read in regards to music, TV, and movies. I don't care if it's not Encyclopedic at all, just as long as it all makes sense.
- Although, quick question- There are episode guide books available. Would just referencing them make the articles better? Because while Charmed was a big hit with fans (#1 top requested show to have DVD sets released for the longest time), it wasn't exactly something that was written about in newspapers and magazines much of the time, if at all. So finding lots of sources wouldn't be fruitful at all. Those books would probably be the closest we'd get to a real source.Socalledboothy (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's the thing..."fun to read" does not make it encyclopaedic content. Those episodes that aren't sourced are slowly being removed as they have been here; such content is being outsourced to Wikia, to similar projects as I linked to above. And no, episode guide books are not acceptable source material, since they were written specifically for the show and don't assert particular notability. Like it or not (and no, I don't particularly like it), that's Wikipedia's policy. If you can't assert notability and back it up with good third party sources, it shouldn't be here. Focused content is Wikia's purview; that site should be much more widely promoted than it currently is. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- They have only been merged, you can still read them in the revision history, just type the name of the episode in the search box click go, go to the top of the list, click the tile in (redirected from: _____) and there go to the history tab and from there click the one that's below the top. I hope this helps. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, okay. Who was this message intended for: myself or Boothy? If Boothy, I've already pointed this out above; if myself, I'm one of the maintainers of the List article. There's no need to resurrect old discussions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't that old, it's only month and a half old, but whatever. I was just giving a piece of advice, I got nothing else to add. Have a nice day. And yes it was intended for Boothy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, okay. Who was this message intended for: myself or Boothy? If Boothy, I've already pointed this out above; if myself, I'm one of the maintainers of the List article. There's no need to resurrect old discussions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Establishing Notability For Characters/Consensus to Merge & Redirect
Time to continue putting the world of Charmed into encyclopedic order: this time with the character articles. To summarise the existing problem, per our notability guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT):
- Most individual character articles are written from an in-universe perspective and they fail to establish real-world significance, supported by verifiable and independent, third party, reliable sources.
It is currently the consensus view that Wikipedia is not a fansite and as a result the bulk of the information we provide needs to be centred on the real-world impact of individual fictional characters. This clearly is currently not the case, so remedial measures should be introduced.
It is my view that no material exists which shows that most Charmed characters satisfy our notability and fiction criteria: demonstrable real-world impact does not exist. But I hasten to add: this does not mean that this is a correct assertion.
Per the recent arbcom ruling, which exhorts:
The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question.
editors are invited to contribute to the question of how individual characters can be improved to meet our standards. What we do not need are !votes unsupported by reference to policy. What we DO need is:
- agreement to merge and redirect characters that fail to establish notability to the main Character list , or
- clear demonstration that the assertion above, viz. demonstrable real-world impact does not exist is erroneous, in which case those character articles for which this is true should certainly be retained.
It would be salutary if editors could weigh in with specific reference to our consensus notability and fiction policies, since that is where the crux of the solution lies. Providing clear links to sources that substantiate assertions of notability would be particularly commendable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, no notable external source exists for virtually anything Charmed-related. Kill off all the character pages--all of them--and either make a single List of page for them or fold everything into the main Charmed article. Face it, the episode articles were the only real valuable resource here...with them gone, there's no reason for anything else to exist.
- This is only half tongue-in-cheek. There is no reason to keep the character articles given their pathetically poor state of existance, and can be better maintained as a single article. However, I strongly feel this current effort to purge virtually all pop culture material will at best result in significant damage to the 'pedia user base, and at worst result in the death of the project. It is, to be frank, inane and unneeded. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
DVDs?
I know there should be information about DVDs somewhere in this article. I know they exist, because I happen to own three seasons. I would add them, but I don't know the release dates.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found it in the multimedia article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I Have All Eight Seasons And Can Tell You That Charmed Season Eight Was Released In The UK On The 4th April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor96 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know because I checked the Charmed multimedia place. This page got too long so they had to put the DVD information to another page, I know because I'm a revision historian. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
An AfD you don't wanna miss/Sam Wilder
It's about Sam Wilder click here for more information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because Sam Wilder's page is being considered for deletion does not mean that the character is, he still played a part in the show when he appeared and he did appear several times. If you wish to delete his page and have a good reason that’s fine but deleting him from the recurring list is unjustified.TaylorLeigh (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- And it wouldn't be up for deletion had TheBlazikenMaster not nominated it. Sounds like it's a personal vendetta against the character. Just because he wasn't seen, he was repeatedly mentioned throughout the show. Removing him is unnecessary.KellyAna (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This might sound unkind but TheBlazikenMaster seems to be taking it upon himself to decide who is important and who isn't. Though I will admit that that is part of the purpose of this website he is not the only one who reads this page. I think all further edits on this page need to be discussed before being carried out. TaylorLeigh (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't understand why someone who supposedly wants to improve the page would nominate characters for deletion rather than suggest the page be improved. It seems like an odd tactic. I have to wonder if the intent is to improve or not. KellyAna (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I admit I might have been wrong in nominating the article. But since the decision is close to merge/delete, and not keep, I really think it's useless to keep it on this page. Appearing in a few episodes doesn't make him recurring character in my opinion, it makes him a minor character. Even if he is around all those three episodes, that doesn't matter. It should be mentioned maybe in one of the character articles but not here. I know that it was right to revert me, I also know we should discuss this. He would fit in one of the characters pages, but being a main character's father doesn't automaticlly make him notable enough to be in this article. Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, two people already disagree with you and I'm sure once Hunster sees this, they'll disagree with you too. Because you've nominated the article, the information has to go somewhere. That's the point of "merge" to put the information in the correct location. Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts dictate he is a character of note and should be listed. He was a constant through the series "Mom left dad for her whitelighter" was constantly heard. Piper was afraid to tell her father Leo was a whitelighter because her "mom left her dad for her whitelighter." Paige wouldn't exist without him. He's a vital part of the show just like Grams and Patty. KellyAna (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make assumptions. I feel there is no point in him having his own page. Yes, he is an integral part of the show, but still a fairly minor player in the scheme of things. Heck, Coop and, err, Paige's husband I believe received more screen time than Wilder, and they most certainly don't need any more than a couple of paragraphs on a "List of" article. Same goes for this situation...his section in List of Charmed family and friends is all that is needed.
- This is why I stay away from character articles anymore...they are simply too contentious. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, two people already disagree with you and I'm sure once Hunster sees this, they'll disagree with you too. Because you've nominated the article, the information has to go somewhere. That's the point of "merge" to put the information in the correct location. Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts dictate he is a character of note and should be listed. He was a constant through the series "Mom left dad for her whitelighter" was constantly heard. Piper was afraid to tell her father Leo was a whitelighter because her "mom left her dad for her whitelighter." Paige wouldn't exist without him. He's a vital part of the show just like Grams and Patty. KellyAna (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I admit I might have been wrong in nominating the article. But since the decision is close to merge/delete, and not keep, I really think it's useless to keep it on this page. Appearing in a few episodes doesn't make him recurring character in my opinion, it makes him a minor character. Even if he is around all those three episodes, that doesn't matter. It should be mentioned maybe in one of the character articles but not here. I know that it was right to revert me, I also know we should discuss this. He would fit in one of the characters pages, but being a main character's father doesn't automaticlly make him notable enough to be in this article. Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't understand why someone who supposedly wants to improve the page would nominate characters for deletion rather than suggest the page be improved. It seems like an odd tactic. I have to wonder if the intent is to improve or not. KellyAna (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like it's a personal vendetta against the character.
- Did I ever say I have something against the character? No, I didn't, so don't assume such. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This might sound unkind but TheBlazikenMaster seems to be taking it upon himself to decide who is important and who isn't. Though I will admit that that is part of the purpose of this website he is not the only one who reads this page. I think all further edits on this page need to be discussed before being carried out. TaylorLeigh (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- And it wouldn't be up for deletion had TheBlazikenMaster not nominated it. Sounds like it's a personal vendetta against the character. Just because he wasn't seen, he was repeatedly mentioned throughout the show. Removing him is unnecessary.KellyAna (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh and one more thing, stop speaking to me like I'm some kinda villain. Look, I knew what I was doing when nominating it, and I know what a recurring character is, a recurring character is a character that appears on the show every so often. Sam isn't a recurring character he is a minor character. Being a father of a main character doesn't make him any more recurring. You should maybe mention him in the article of his daughter, but not here. I know I'm right. So I am asking once and for all: Stop speaking to me like I'm some kinda villain, and instead respond to me like I am an average editor. Thank you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been redirected
Oh and this article should only list characters that have appeared several times. There is a difference betweeen a recurring and mionr character, since Sam has only been in like three episodes, he is a minor. I personally don't find him "recurring" enough to be recurring. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also added the necessary information to the character article. I still think he is too minor to be mentioned on the main television article. I will of course discuss this, if I get more supporters than opposers by the time it's April Fools' Day I will remove him from the main Charmed page. Believe me, I won't unless more people support my suggestion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not only my opinion, it's a fact. I know what I'm doing, I have been on Wikipedia for a whole year so I know how things work around here.
- Please do not ever make such statements again. I don't care if you've been here five years, you have no right to bludgeon other editors into following your example. Personally, I agree with what you are saying, but you are saying it in an entirely inappropriate manner. Saying such things will not make people take you any more seriously. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I striked out the text where I acted like a king. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I reworded it, better now? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- So far you're 3 to 1 for keeping him on the article. You have no support at this point in time. KellyAna (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's way too early to say that now, we will wait until April 1st. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's never too early and April 1st is too far out. The norm is a week, back it off although I don't think it matters, the info will be there April 2nd regardless of YOUR personal feelings and it is obvious this is personal for you. The fact that the character was not deleted, but rather merged is significant. It isn't about majority, someone who claimed in an edit to own something and have been here for a year should know that. It's about credible argument. KellyAna (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not all about me, if that's what you're saying. I do care, why do you think I added notice to this talk page? I wouldn't have if I thought it was all about me, is that what you're saying? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Added notice? What are you talking about? The recurring list has been talked about many times, no one ever questioned Sam until you and then you got his article deleted and merged. Your actions make no sense. KellyAna (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just look at the top of this section. I did warn about the nomination, and with someone who claimed in an edit to own something looks like you think I think it's all about me, which is not true. I might have been the first one wanting this removed, but stuff here get nominated all the time, so don't think I'm the worst nominator here, there are people that nominate all day long. You should bring this to WP:DRV if you disagree with my nomination. Again, I never said I thought it was all about me, and it looks like you assumed I did think so. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but I just don't know what else to say. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Added notice? What are you talking about? The recurring list has been talked about many times, no one ever questioned Sam until you and then you got his article deleted and merged. Your actions make no sense. KellyAna (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not all about me, if that's what you're saying. I do care, why do you think I added notice to this talk page? I wouldn't have if I thought it was all about me, is that what you're saying? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's never too early and April 1st is too far out. The norm is a week, back it off although I don't think it matters, the info will be there April 2nd regardless of YOUR personal feelings and it is obvious this is personal for you. The fact that the character was not deleted, but rather merged is significant. It isn't about majority, someone who claimed in an edit to own something and have been here for a year should know that. It's about credible argument. KellyAna (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's way too early to say that now, we will wait until April 1st. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- So far you're 3 to 1 for keeping him on the article. You have no support at this point in time. KellyAna (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I reworded it, better now? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I striked out the text where I acted like a king. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are not making sense anymore. You're really just not worth it. At this point if you remove him you are going against consensus. KellyAna (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, that's what I'm trying to explain, I don't think it's all about me. Common, let's face it, every good editor nominates something that not everyone agrees with, and thinks he's doing the right thing. I am no exception. And if I won't get more supporters by the time it's April, believe me, we don't speak of this ever again. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, since this is apparently difficult for you. April is too far out. ONE WEEK. That's the time limit for AfD's. That's the limit here. You don't set the limit with your threats. One week, March 25th. KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not threatening anyone, so I don't have any threats. I'm fine with one week, but I'm not threatening anyone, so don't call anything threats. For the third time I never thought it was about me. Could you stop sounding like you think I do think so? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, since this is apparently difficult for you. April is too far out. ONE WEEK. That's the time limit for AfD's. That's the limit here. You don't set the limit with your threats. One week, March 25th. KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, that's what I'm trying to explain, I don't think it's all about me. Common, let's face it, every good editor nominates something that not everyone agrees with, and thinks he's doing the right thing. I am no exception. And if I won't get more supporters by the time it's April, believe me, we don't speak of this ever again. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- ← Both of you need to calm down, heh. It is not that big of a deal, not the end of the world. Now, Kelly is correct that one week is the standard for these sorts of things, however, it is by no means a hard and fast rule. In this situation, I do think six more days is more than enough time for additional comments to come in. TBM, I think the perceived problem is that you nominated for AfD first and then warned us, rather than coming here and started the discussion to see if it could be worked out amongst editors. That way, you first get the local response, and then if you still go to AfD, you get the broader response. I do think you would have gotten a better response that way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I did post this section here at the same day I started the nomination, I just want Kelly to face the truth, I told her many times I never thought it was all about me. And I don't know if he believes that, but that's the truth. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)- Yeah, calling Kelly a him will surely calm her down. Her name is KellyAna, she's a girl. I'm of the belief Sam should stay in this article. It's unnecessary to remove him, it's one line, it's not like it's several pages of dialog about him. IrishLass (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you making a big deal out of wrong gender? I can't see the faces on the Internet, so there is no need to make a big deal out of it, I can't automaticlly see if it's a woman or not. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I hardly think one comment is "making a big deal" out of anything. Just pointing out the obvious since Ana is part of her name and it says "female" on her user page (which is how you "see" people on Wiki, going to their user pages). I know how she gets and calling her "him" won't win her friendship. You do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder though. I simply made my opinion to keeping Sam in the article known and advised you that KellyAna is a girl. IrishLass (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure Kelly is still a girl? She could be a woman. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me that someone needs to be reported for incivility or at least warned, although Hunster seems to have tried and you don't seem to want to listen. Please, stop with the personal attacks, it's not very flattering and it doesn't lead to progressive problem resolving, it only escalates the issues. IrishLass (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not me, the discussion is over, I removed some personal attack and striked out the rest. It's not that big of a deal, don't worry, I'm calm now. We shouldn't speak of this again. Believe me, I never meant to ignore anyone, you're right I took it way too personally, but I'm done now. I think it's best if someone gets this to WP:DRV, since the deletion of the article didn't seem to be accepted after the deletion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Deletion review is for articles that were deleted and people don't think they should be. The article was merged which is acceptable. Why would you think it needs a deletion review? I'm sorry, maybe you're confused, maybe I am, what exactly do you want, all references to Sam completely deleted like he didn't exist? The AfD outcome was to merge the article, which was done. Do you want it back now? That's the purpose of Deletion Review. IrishLass (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right I am confused. I can't see how Sam is a recurring character, I can only see how he is a minor character. You are right, I am confused, recurring or minor, that's my confusion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay Blaziken, you appear to simply be stirring the pot, trying to cause trouble. Hopefully that is not intentional, but that is how it appears. To pull out the football terms, the yellow card has already been brought into play, let's not go to the red card, k? This is essentially a dead issue now, I suggest everyone drop the issue and let the heat dissipate for a good long while. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Somebody asked if I was confused, I had to answer that, if you want the discussion over, I can't agree more. And believe me, I'm not trying to cause trouble, I already have calmed down. So there is absolutely no need to report me, I am completely calm. Though I'm still confused, I will just stay that way, I see no need to discuss this further. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay Blaziken, you appear to simply be stirring the pot, trying to cause trouble. Hopefully that is not intentional, but that is how it appears. To pull out the football terms, the yellow card has already been brought into play, let's not go to the red card, k? This is essentially a dead issue now, I suggest everyone drop the issue and let the heat dissipate for a good long while. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right I am confused. I can't see how Sam is a recurring character, I can only see how he is a minor character. You are right, I am confused, recurring or minor, that's my confusion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me that someone needs to be reported for incivility or at least warned, although Hunster seems to have tried and you don't seem to want to listen. Please, stop with the personal attacks, it's not very flattering and it doesn't lead to progressive problem resolving, it only escalates the issues. IrishLass (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure Kelly is still a girl? She could be a woman. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I hardly think one comment is "making a big deal" out of anything. Just pointing out the obvious since Ana is part of her name and it says "female" on her user page (which is how you "see" people on Wiki, going to their user pages). I know how she gets and calling her "him" won't win her friendship. You do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder though. I simply made my opinion to keeping Sam in the article known and advised you that KellyAna is a girl. IrishLass (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you making a big deal out of wrong gender? I can't see the faces on the Internet, so there is no need to make a big deal out of it, I can't automaticlly see if it's a woman or not. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, calling Kelly a him will surely calm her down. Her name is KellyAna, she's a girl. I'm of the belief Sam should stay in this article. It's unnecessary to remove him, it's one line, it's not like it's several pages of dialog about him. IrishLass (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedI really hate it when people revert me without a reason AFTER I ask for a reason. Why can't everyone assume good faith? I asked for a reason, instead I got reverted without a reason. Please don't revert me again without giving me a reason, I was only trying to help, reverting me without a reason is like treating my edit as vandalism, and that's not very nice. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- KellyAna gave me a good reason, so the problem's been solved. That reason was good enough for me, no need to discuss this further. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Glad I could help.KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, why was this page removed? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You'll have to research and find the AfD. It really isn't notable and shouldn't exist so I can see why it was previously deleted. I think there should be one collective "Charmed Powers" page. KellyAna (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. The only thing notable about it is: "It's used to teleport through places", there isn't really much more special to say about it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The See also
ResolvedI personally find it irrelevant, I mean, those lists aren't THAT related to the television show Charmed, I want to remove it, of course I wouldn't carelessly remove it, I'm not that kind of a guy. So let's discuss this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have my support...any other takers? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like see also lists and it doesn't detract from the article. IrishLass (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mind showing me an example? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Many articles have "see also" sections. IrishLass (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right about that, but they are often related to the article. But I can't see how those see alsos are related to the Charmed article. The Charmed ones aren't even warriors, they could be action heroes, but I don't find that relevant to the article. I mean an example of a see also that's irrelevant to the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- As it is obvious you like to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, this will be my final words on this. Your opinion is that they aren't relevant, my opinion is they are. I need not justify an opinion nor will I argue just for the sake of arguing. If it were me I would also include Mythology and Wicca in the "see also" section. As it is, the show appears on the lists currently in the "see also" section which makes them relevant. I also believe it is your opinion that they aren't warriors and action heroes, of course they are. IrishLass (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can we please discuss this without assuming that I only disagree for no reason? No I am not I am trying to discuss this in civil manner, I am not saying they aren't action heroes, I am saying I don't see how that see also is relevant. Stop assuming I am just here to disagree with everything, I am here to discuss, so can we please discuss in civil manner? Thank you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since you couldn't get what I was asking, I'll be more specific, can you show me examples of shows that have see also sections like that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion is not based on the immediate, and I am not assuming anything, it is on the overall assessment of this talk page. Regardless of civility or not, you are, in fact, arguing without really having a point. Your thoughts are "I don't like" but you've not backed why "you don't like" the list. See also section are added to link one article to another. As the show is listed on the two pages, it is relevant. Again, since I previously said I was done discussing this, I will say it again. I am done, I will not argue and I will not allow you to bait me into repeating myself when you are obviously no "hearing" what I've said in regards to the articles on the see also list. IrishLass (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is to try to understand. I just want examples. I am not doing any "I don't like it" arguments, if I did I wouldn't be discussing this, I'd rather remove the see also section without discussing, which I'm not doing. I'm just trying to understand. I want examples, I will look for them. If you don't wanna discuss further, don't discuss further, I am only tying to understand. You're right that I didn't give any reasons, because I never hated the lists, it's just hard to understand how they are relevant to the see also section, if it makes you feel any better, I will just look for the examples myself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion is not based on the immediate, and I am not assuming anything, it is on the overall assessment of this talk page. Regardless of civility or not, you are, in fact, arguing without really having a point. Your thoughts are "I don't like" but you've not backed why "you don't like" the list. See also section are added to link one article to another. As the show is listed on the two pages, it is relevant. Again, since I previously said I was done discussing this, I will say it again. I am done, I will not argue and I will not allow you to bait me into repeating myself when you are obviously no "hearing" what I've said in regards to the articles on the see also list. IrishLass (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since you couldn't get what I was asking, I'll be more specific, can you show me examples of shows that have see also sections like that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can we please discuss this without assuming that I only disagree for no reason? No I am not I am trying to discuss this in civil manner, I am not saying they aren't action heroes, I am saying I don't see how that see also is relevant. Stop assuming I am just here to disagree with everything, I am here to discuss, so can we please discuss in civil manner? Thank you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- As it is obvious you like to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, this will be my final words on this. Your opinion is that they aren't relevant, my opinion is they are. I need not justify an opinion nor will I argue just for the sake of arguing. If it were me I would also include Mythology and Wicca in the "see also" section. As it is, the show appears on the lists currently in the "see also" section which makes them relevant. I also believe it is your opinion that they aren't warriors and action heroes, of course they are. IrishLass (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right about that, but they are often related to the article. But I can't see how those see alsos are related to the Charmed article. The Charmed ones aren't even warriors, they could be action heroes, but I don't find that relevant to the article. I mean an example of a see also that's irrelevant to the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Many articles have "see also" sections. IrishLass (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mind showing me an example? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like see also lists and it doesn't detract from the article. IrishLass (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
For your edification:
All along the same genre. So, yes, I did the work for you and there you have your list. Happy now? IrishLass (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, the discussion is over, if I sounded like I wanted the see also section removed for no good reason, I apologize, that wasn't at all what I meant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I may, the only reason the "List of women warriors..." link is there, and the See also section even exists, is because User:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer went around on or around November 3, 2007 to a massive number of articles and added it (not just to television articles, but to individual characters). There was no discussion to add it, it was just done. I don't care if it stays or goes, but to say that "all these other articles have it, so we should too" is a bit fallacious. Also Irishlass, I notice that you added those links to Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess, so it was probably not a good idea to use those as examples to support your case. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the question was asked for other articles with "see also" sections (not for articles with the same links) and they had the section, I just added the one link to an already existing section. DO NOT accuse me of deception, aka LYING, when I did not. The Xena article previously had the Hercules See Also and all the same links as the Hercules article but the section was not there this morning so I added it back but I DID NOT add the See Also section to Xena, that was there before, I added one link to it. One thing that really crosses the lines of civility is falsely accusing someone of lying/deception. I won't stand for ANYONE to call me a liar. IrishLass (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I rather take offense at you saying I accused you of something I did not, leaving a message on my talk page to that effect. If you have a problem with a discussion here, leave the message here. I was specifically referring to the "List of women warriors..." and "List of action heroes" links which you *did* add to Xena, and you did add the entire See also section to the series article. That is all I was speaking off. I never accused you of lying, just that it probably wasn't a good idea to use those specific examples above! I don't accuse people of lying unless I am damn sure they are, and I know you aren't lying...there was nothing to lie about. Now, if there is an issue I'm not seeing, please address that, but do not make such extraordinary accusations. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you accused me of lying. You stated I added it to win my argument which is not true. I added it to expand an already existing section. I meant what I said on your talk page, accuse me or anyone else of lying again and I will immediately report you. I notice that you added those links to Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess, so it was probably not a good idea to use those as examples to support your case. The implication being the sections didn't exist and I added the links to add the section. Not true and it could very well be that you don't realize that it came out that way but by saying I added the links you accuse me of doctoring my "argument" which is accusing me of lying to win. That's how I took it and I stand by that "reading" of what was said. I did get the Xena and Xena:WP mixed up but Xena did have a see also list. I did not create it to win my argument. IrishLass (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, okay, whatever. No, I did not accuse you of lying. If I did, I would have stated as such. You can read more into it if you wish, but usually that's not a good idea, especially when it comes to textual chat, since it is more difficult to determine the other person's state of mind. But back on topic, I simply said that using those two as examples probably wasn't the best move; I in no way said that you specifically included them to win an argument.
- I'm done with this discussion, as well as this article and series. It has become far too contentious for my taste. Please resume your regularly scheduled editing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you accused me of lying. You stated I added it to win my argument which is not true. I added it to expand an already existing section. I meant what I said on your talk page, accuse me or anyone else of lying again and I will immediately report you. I notice that you added those links to Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess, so it was probably not a good idea to use those as examples to support your case. The implication being the sections didn't exist and I added the links to add the section. Not true and it could very well be that you don't realize that it came out that way but by saying I added the links you accuse me of doctoring my "argument" which is accusing me of lying to win. That's how I took it and I stand by that "reading" of what was said. I did get the Xena and Xena:WP mixed up but Xena did have a see also list. I did not create it to win my argument. IrishLass (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I rather take offense at you saying I accused you of something I did not, leaving a message on my talk page to that effect. If you have a problem with a discussion here, leave the message here. I was specifically referring to the "List of women warriors..." and "List of action heroes" links which you *did* add to Xena, and you did add the entire See also section to the series article. That is all I was speaking off. I never accused you of lying, just that it probably wasn't a good idea to use those specific examples above! I don't accuse people of lying unless I am damn sure they are, and I know you aren't lying...there was nothing to lie about. Now, if there is an issue I'm not seeing, please address that, but do not make such extraordinary accusations. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the question was asked for other articles with "see also" sections (not for articles with the same links) and they had the section, I just added the one link to an already existing section. DO NOT accuse me of deception, aka LYING, when I did not. The Xena article previously had the Hercules See Also and all the same links as the Hercules article but the section was not there this morning so I added it back but I DID NOT add the See Also section to Xena, that was there before, I added one link to it. One thing that really crosses the lines of civility is falsely accusing someone of lying/deception. I won't stand for ANYONE to call me a liar. IrishLass (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)