Jump to content

Talk:Piper Halliwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Weeks?"

[edit]

The article reads, "Just weeks after Prue's death, Piper and Phoebe discover the existence of their baby half-sister, Paige Matthews."

Perhaps this would be better and more accurate if "weeks" were changed to "days." The existence of Paige and their relationship to her was discovered on the heels of Prue's funeral, where they first met. Does it normally take "weeks" to have a funeral after the death of someone? Not with anyone I know. Unless Wicca has some unusual customs, Prue's funeral should have been done within four days of her death. Also, why would Shax be biding his time for "weeks" to renew his attack on the Charmed ones, especially since the Source's blathering Oracle forsaw the reformation of the Charmed ones?

Asking for your thoughts on this... PatrickLMT (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was about a week because at one point in the opening episode Daryl says "Prue and a doctor were killed here last week" or seomthing similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.4.131 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Hallowell was born May 29th 1972

Middle Name

[edit]

In the episode Show Ghouls, which I just watched on TNT, Piper asks Phoebe her middle name. I didn't catch it, and I think it would have been a good thing to add.--Dil 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Phoebe actually says Pipers middle name is "surly". Chimufu 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lol.--Dil 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe says it's "Sirley" or maybe Alyssa Milano didn't say it right and it was "Shirley".Yes,we shoudl add it,but some person out there might think it's a fake and remove it. Jake

No, Piper's middle name is not Shirely. Phoebe called her surly, an adjective used to describe someone who is ill-tempered, as a joke on Piper's nervous and on-edge mood. A similar joke was made in "Witchness Protection" in which Kira, the second Seer asked Leo "[is] that surly one is your wife?". It was a joke, nothing more. Olympic (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) It is probably a sarcastic comment by Phoebe since Piper does not have a middle name and her suggesting that "Surly" would be a good middle name if she had one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.2.166 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powers

[edit]

I added the specifics of Piper's powers, including her apparent limits. I also corrected a few minor mistakes, such as the idea that she needs both hands to use her powers (originally, she did, but has since demonstrated both talents using one hand) and the idea that she needs to see an object to freeze it (she generally freezes the entire area and every object in it, whether she can see it or not). I also corrected a minor error that stated that Piper gained the powers of a whitelighter "once." She not only switched powers with Leo during "Siren's Song" but also "Love Bites," when she used a spell to switch powers with Leo in order to heal him.PatrickLMT 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The episode was called "Love Hurts",not "Love Bites".It was never "Love Bites". JakeTheBlake 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the powers be named as they were on the show/comics. Freezing, Exploding and Heating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.246.156 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with power description

[edit]

There is something more involved with Piper's powers than simply inducing stasis within a certain area. Causing a balance of forces on a living thing should be barely noticeable, since all it would have to do is will itself to move again. Obviously, Piper must also be able to induce a freeze within the cognitive processes of living things, since they cannot simply will themselves to move again, and more importantly, they have no recollection of being frozen. PatrickLMT 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point with temporal stasis though. It freezes all molecules completely within the target area. This would stop all brain function as well, given that neural impulses don't just "happen", but are the result of movement of neurotransmitters and electrical impulses. Temporal stasis would affect these as well. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's just one of the things we'll have to live with. Freezing the molecular motion of an object completely would lower its temperature to absolute zero, since heat is molecular motion. PatrickLMT 22:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears to be kind of an inconsistency with the show. When Piper froze the truck, she apparently froze the driver, too, since he didn't just step out of the cab and wonder why his truck came to an immediate stop. On the other hand, she was unable to freeze a certain witch hunter inside a van, until she actually opened the door. Maybe the truck driver had a window open. 72.91.42.26 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, after Piper's power advanced so that she could speed up molecules, causing them to explode, I began to think that her freezing power didn't actually stop molecules, but slowed them down to such an extent that to the observer they appeared frozen. Secondly, it's a TV show, so they don't need to follow real world physics.--NeilEvans 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slowing down molecular motion rather than stopping it completely would still lower the temperature. Secondly, I understand that it's a TV show and not bound by real world physics. That was the whole point of saying, "that's just one of the things we'll have to live with." PatrickLMT 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the saying that her exploding power is "molecular combustion". Combustion is when something sets on fire, isn't it? When she explodes something, it just...explodes. It doesn't catch fire at all. Shouldn't this be changed to molecular explosion or something like that? jpagan09
Piper's powers were always referred to as freezing and exploding. Isn't it better to use the in-universe names given to abilities, rather than names constructed by the fans?
Molecular immoblization just seems wrong. and molecular combustion is just weird. because these names for her powers are up, people keep bringing the laws of science into it. shouldn't the names used in the show be used since those are what are most correct? (i.e. freezing time and exploding objects at will) Jpagan09 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you rehashing a 2 year old argument? The description is FINE. KellyAna (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Wars?

[edit]

I restored the "Portrayed By" listings of the two actresses who portrayed Young Piper. Emalee Thompson gets a credit on Prue's page, and of even greater relevance, Ellen Geer, who is a one timer who portrayed "Mature Piper" is mentioned. It is only consistent to include Megan Corletto and Hunter Ansley Wryn, who portrayed "Young Piper." Remove them again, and I will restore them, and I will call upon the adminstrators to arbitrate. PatrickLMT 10:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever changed the asterisks to footnotes and referenced the appropriate episodes to footnotes, regarding the portrayals of Piper by Megan Corletto, Hunter Ansley Wryn and Ellen Geer, may I say that was a terrific idea? It's a much better solution than using asterisks to navigate the user to different pages regarding their respective episodes. I only offer this as a suggestion, though, and will leave it up to your discretion. One of the problems I had with listing the other actresses is that it doesn't make it clear that these three others portrayed Piper in other stages of her life that are not consistent with the continuity. Might it be appropriate, to clarify this in the footnotes? For example, Megan Corletto's entry might read, "Portrayed Piper at age 2 in "That '70s Episode." But like I implied earlier, I am so enamored by the brilliance of changing the asterisks to footnotes, that I wouldn't change a thing about them, unless the author thinks it would be a good idea. PatrickLMT 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

[edit]

Whoever did the footnotes did a superb job and that must have taken a ton of searching. I'm very impressed. Just one thing, since I don't know how to correct footnotes. Shouldn't number 22 read Love Hurts and Siren's Song, since it's a reference to the two times Piper swapped powers with Leo? 72.91.42.26 10:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, I'm glad someone likes them. I have corrected the reference to Siren's Song. If you spot anymore let me know.--NeilEvans 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I typed the above without logging in. And yes, you did a fantastic job. The only thing I can think of is the reference on Prue's page to her astrally projecting herself to Cole's side without knowing exactly where he was. That was "Death Takes A Halliwell." PatrickLMT 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Research

[edit]

There is a comment on Piper's page that reads, "Piper is the second eldest of the Charmed Ones and inherently the most powerful." Which authority on the show said she was the most powerful? The eldest were always the strongest, according to the series, so that would mean Prue is the most powerful. And what exactly is meant by "most powerful"? Were her spells the strongest? If this is to mean in terms of number of different abilites, that would mean Paige is the most powerful. Her witch and whitelighter heritage give her the most innate abilities to choose from. For that matter, even Phoebe, who with her empathic abilities, premonitions and levitation would be more powerful than Piper. Could she put more force of will behind her spells? What do the rest of you think? Should this comment stay as is, or does it belong under "independent research"? PatrickLMT 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It has been vanquished for the OR that it is. Actually, that section needs a complete rewrite, and needs to be broken up into subsections, but I don't really feel qualified enough to perform the task. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, you vanquished it? Did you use a potion or a spell? If you ever need a power of three vanquish, I'm sure Neil Evans and I could join you. All kidding aside, I see what you mean. That section is a hodgepodge. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to be. It seems to be a biography of sorts, but only within the confines of the actual series. Also, I feel that much of it is simply too opinionated; OR, if you prefer. For example, the writer opines that Piper is the "most unlucky in love." Really? Cupid once gave a list of all the loves in their lives, and Phoebe's seemed the longest, by far. Piper was the first to be married (unless you count Prue's marriage to Zile), and the one with the longest successful relationship in the series. She never divorced, nor did she ever feel the need to vanquish her husband, unlike Prue and Phoebe. But I'm wondering, why is the writer even opining about such things? This isn't objective fact. It's a matter of perspective. Why not simply give a history of Piper's romantic involvements, and leave it at that. Actually, truth be told, I don't think I care for the whole article. I like a lot of what's written. (I should, since I wrote some of it myself.) But if it were up to me, I'd simply have a section of Piper's personal history, broken up into sections, like life prior to the series (as revealed throughout the series, like their powers being bound, their father leaving on her eighth birthday, etc.), life during the series (broken up into sections by time), and a decidedly short section of life after the series. I'd also include a section dedicated to the specifics of Piper's powers. There seems to be some good, reasonable information in the article there. (Since I wrote a lot of it.) PatrickLMT 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I'm glad you think so highly of your own work :D One option is to look at the material at hand, create a logical outline based on it, and rewrite using that outline as a table of contents. I have a feeling it could be greatly reduced in volume...it's not exactly readable as-is. I do wish that HTML or wikicode had the ability to easily reproduce paragraph form indented text. It might not be so bad then. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It not only can be reduced in length. It should be. It's not necessary to give a synopsis of every episode, which is what this boils down to, in order to define who Piper Halliwell is. A person not familiar with this series, hearing a reference to her, would be overwhelmed by the information given on this page. I think an encyclopediac article should start with the basics, just to define who she is. (The first paragraph would simply say that she is a fictional character of WB Series "Charmed;" middle sister of three, later the eldest after the death of her older sister; innate ability to freeze molecular motion within a specific area, often inaccurately referred to as "freezing time"; later gained the ability to cause objects to explode). This should satisfy the curiosity of the casual observer who might encounter the name Piper Halliwell as a cultural reference and wonder who she was, without needing to know every detail of her life. Then the subsequent sections could simply be an expansion of that, so the person ignorant of who she was can stop reading, while those more interested can keep going. But all this information. Anyone who needs that much information can buy the DVDs for themselves, or watch the show in syndication. PatrickLMT 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Powerful

[edit]

From the beginning of the series, it was said that the earliest born sister would have the strongest powers (which is Prue). This was true until the sisters got their second powers. I don't see how moving things with your mind is more powerful than making demons explode by the wave of a hand! My friend (also a hardcore Charmed fan) told me it was because when Prue died, Piper needed to have more fire power! Is that right? Bubble bunny

There is no right or wrong. Prue died and her powers stopped, piper had 5more years for them to grow, who's to say prue's wouldn't have been more powerfull after 5 years. And i doubt her powers increased just because prue died,as paige has powers to compensate for prue's. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,your comparison isn't right.Telekinesis was Prue's first power.Her second one was Astral Projection.Also,Piper doesn't "wave" her hand,she does it like she'd do when she's freezing. Astral projection is a strong power,which is sort of like orbing except the body stays and multiplys into two.If Prue was alive,she might get a new power,much like how Phoebe ended up with three powers in season six,"empathy" (previous powers : premonition,levitation).Also,when Prue died,Piper became the oldest sister and Piper began to gain more control over her molecular combustion power after Prue died. Piper didn't have to have more fire power,there was Paige to substitute when Prue was gone,especially since they share the power of Telekinesis. JakeTheBlake 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this part

[edit]

"The immunity to her freezing powers may not apply to her exploding power. Prue theorized that since good witches were immune to her freezing power, they would be immune to her exploding power. That theory has never been tested, however."

She can blow up witches. She blew up Bianca during Season 6. And she was a witch. 24.14.120.92 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the part that said good witches, not just witches. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca proved immune to Piper's freezing power in that episode, however. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are immune to pipers freezing power. not just good witches. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, so that's an example of someone who is immune to freezing but not to exploding, which should be noted. The article currently says that the immunity may not extend to her exploding power, and Bianca is an actual example of it not doing so. -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers to GOOD witches. There are many demons who were immune to her exploding power. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence doesn't refer specifically to good witches, only to immunity to freezing not extending to exploding. -- Noneofyourbusiness 05:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually it is saying that good witches immune to her freezing would also be immune to her explosion.

This is amusing. Someone announces they are removing a sentence, but no one actually does it. I actually wrote the sentence in question, so I will edit it to something more accurate. Just a question, first. Has Bianca been established as a "good witch"? PatrickLMT 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I watched the episode and i don't think shes even a witch. I believe it said shes a demon. so that nullifies his entire argument. The sentence is fine. There has not been a single time when she tried to blow up a good witch. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No she is in fact a witch, the Phoenix Coven is a family of witches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.19.251 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity to her freezing power and combustion power are not related. Those immune to her freezing such as upper level demons, may still be vulnerable to explosion. Bianca is not a demon, she's a witch, but not a good one. They have a grimoire, the book of shadows for evil witches.

Main picture

[edit]

I recently added a new picture to this page, which represented Piper Halliwell, however it again had been replaced with the picture that represents HOLLY MARIE COMBS and not PIPER HALLIWELL, please do not remove the picture I change just because it looks cool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Generation talk123 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because your image "looks better" doesn't mean it is acceptable to use. The picture you replaced is a free image, whereas your image is classified as fair-use. Per fair-use policies, if a free image is available, it must be used in the place of a fair-use image, and it has been clarified that if a free-use image of an actor/actress is available and it reasonably resembles the character they depict, then that should be used instead of a promo image.
Basically, do not add your image again, because it violates Wikipedia's Fair-Use policies. Thanks. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't bother arguing (even though the image that is being used represents the person herself and not the character at all which is what this article is about) because you will always try to find a little excuse to remove the image known as editing wars. Adding the picture which represents this character is fair use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Generation talk123 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hey, t'isn't my rule, I'm just doing what was told to me. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but I would of preffered it if someone had left a message on my Talk page so I would actually be able to see what was wrong instead of it being automatically being deleted without a word.
Most other fictional character pages have pictures of the Character on the Character's page, as opposed to the unusual ruling listed here. Such as Evangeline Lillys character "Kate Austen" on LOST, and Martin Sheen's character of President Bartlett on The West Wing. So why would a picture of the actress out-of-character be used in this instance? - A.J. 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because another article does something doesn't make it right. Free imagery should be used whenever possible. Remember, we're not going for "pretty", just a basic picture to identify the subject at hand. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many good promo images of Piper on Google that better identify her than the image that is used. Can anyone tell me how to upload one of these images onto Wikipedia because the only thing I know how to upload is photo's that I have taken myselfKkbhe 06:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those promo pictures are not free. Because this one is, and closely resembles the character of Piper, it is always preferred to use free images. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, nobody remove the screenshot of Piper as the Holly Marie pic is clearly of her not portraying Piper. Plus, if you remove pics and replace them with free pics, then you'd have to replace the image on Phoebe's page with the one on Alyssa Milano's page and the same with Prue's image and the Shannon Doherty image and that would just be pointless!Kkbhe 12:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does my screenshot keep getting romoved?! Well,okay, I always get the same reason and it doesn't really make sense because on Paige's article, a screenshot is used and Phoebe and Prue both have promo's on their's and no-one removes them and replaces them with the image on the actress who plays them's page and says it's because we need a free-use image. So why does this keep happening on Piper's page?!Kkbhe 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't care either way, but I do hold that if a free image that reasonably reflects the character's appearance is available, always use the free image. Fair-use should be avoided whenever possible. Please, if you feel the need, replace the fair-use images in the other articles with free images. Matters not to me. I just want Wikipedia to be as free as possible, and using fair-use images when they are not required goes against that ideal. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the actors have freely licensed pictures on their articles, and they resemble their character, then use those pics in the articles. The picture we have now resembles how she looked when she played Piper, so there is no reason not use the free image. It's always bad to replace a high quality, free, picture with a low quality fair-use one. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want images on the other character's page to be replaced with free images, I was just trying to make a point! I think that the images on Phoebe, Prue and Paige's articles are the best to use as the images of the actresses clearly are out of character and I just wonder why this happens on Piper's page and no-one else's.

Although, I suppose the images of the other actresses show them too clearly out of character and the Holly Marie one could easily be Piper as she is just posing and smiling so I guess I'll give this one a rest but don't do this on the other character's pages eg. The Rose McGowan image shows her at some awards thing, so this wouldn't be appropriate to ID PaigeKkbhe 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment was incorrect, the Rose McGowan pic shows her at a movie premiere, not an awards presentation. Still, don't use it on Paige's article as she looks a little different from when she played Paige.

P.S. A comment above says it is always bad to relace a high quality free image with a low quality fair-use image. How was my screenshot of Piper low quality?! Can somebody tell me what was wrong with it (apart from all the guidelines stuff, which I already know)?Kkbhe 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the picture of Piper in "Centennial Charmed" because although that is Piper, it was only one episode. I uploaded a promo instead. Jpagan09 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded an illegal image which has been removed and replaced with the original picture. You must learn the difference between an actress and a character in order to upload images and post them in articles. KellyAna (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Piper in Forever Charmed

[edit]

Who played young Piper in Forever Charmed? When Piper, Leo and Patty go to find Grams with Coop's ring they find Penny talking to a young Piper, who was the actress, she should be added to the infobox as portraying Piper.--NeilEvans 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks I already found out.--NeilEvans 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanquished an error

[edit]

This statement is incorrect: "In the episode Hulkus Pocus, Piper freezes Billie, but it was established before that Piper couldn't freeze witches." And it has been vanquished. (I used a potion.)

It was never claimed on the show that Piper couldn't freeze witches. It was established that Piper couldn't freeze GOOD witches. Those witches who are not good can still be frozen. PatrickLMT 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm going to remove that entire paragraph, as aside from the basic opening phrase, it is almost entirely speculation. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I just didn't want to wipe out someone's efforts completely. Apparently, you have no such qualms. Piper did freeze Billie, true. The only explanation that would be consistent with the show? Billie simply isn't a good witch. If Piper had somehow learned to freeze good witches, she would have said so, particularly if this were her first time doing so. But in the end, it's all speculation, as you say. I did add some comments to that paragraph, since there's no reason to think that Piper somehow learned the freeze good witches. I just wanted to give another possible explanation. When I saw it, I simply thought that Billie wasn't a good witch. The idea that Piper's powers grew to the point where she could freeze good witches didn't occur to me. And I still don't think it makes sense anyway. PatrickLMT 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she could freeze good witches, wouldn't her sisters freeze as well? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I don't think Billie could be considered a witch anyway as she was being transformed due to the scratch. Missjessica254 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at that moment she was no longer a good witch but a beast transformed bu the scratch :) Harmless 77 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piper could freeze any witches, who she couldn't freeze are blood relatives. When Paige had a new charge as a whitelighter, her charge was frozen, and she was obviously good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.75.39 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier seasons with Prue, when a warlock stole Piper's powers, he still couldn't freeze Phoebe, Phoebe saying good witches don't freeze, but it was really because they are sisters. The freezing power comes from Piper and it won't affect her sisters. The Stillman sister that stole Piper's power was able to freeze all three of them because the Stillman sisters used a spell to completely steal their identity and powers as a witch. It wasn't just powers that were stolen but identities as well, so they were affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.75.39 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Piperandleoswitch.JPG

[edit]

Image:Piperandleoswitch.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic

[edit]

Would it be possible that her "freezing" power stems from absolute zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.16.141 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piper's Exploding Power

[edit]

If her freezing power is called molecular immobilization, shouldn't her exploding power be called molecular acceleration since she speeds up the molecules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpagan09 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LeFemmePiper.jpg

[edit]

Image:LeFemmePiper.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The image portrays Holly as Piper well, however this image is old, and portrays a Piper which is violent and unlike the one we saw in most other episodes. Could someone please replace this? If no one does then ill look for another picture. Dont Mean to be horrible to anyone by posting this :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmless 77 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't represent Piper's character extremely well. Afterall, it is a picture of her from an alternate reality (from the 100th episode "Centennial Charmed") and naturally won't reflect the real timeline Piper as well as it reflects her "la femme nikita" alternate self. Olympic (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have now replaced, tell me what you think please, as I think it is fairly suitable :). Harmless 77 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIPER SURLY HALLIWELL

[edit]

Her name is NOT PIPER SURLY. Phoebe was saying this jokingly to Piper because Piper was being paranoid as to whether it was really Phoebe.

Images at the Charmed Wiki

[edit]

The external link at the bottom of the article that takes us to the Piper page at the Charmed Wiki reveals several awesome photos of Holly Marie Combs "in character". However, unlike here in the Wikipedia, when you click on a photo there is no copyright info. So I wonder if anybody here knows the story on those photos. Can they be used here?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  10:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Screenshot

[edit]

I HATED that picture that someone put up (what is with the horrible pictures of Piper and Prue?), a pixelated image of her from a smaller image. So I uploaded a really nice screenshot of her from 2x15, "Just Harried". I uploaded a new one to Prue Halliwell's page as well. Evil silence (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who isolated Piper and Prue from other screenshots. I wasn't that crazy about them either, but I felt they were better than what was there before. In Prue's case there was no image at all, and in Piper's the image was a redundant image from later in the article. Anyway, the previous section on this Talk page shows that I was interested in improvement, and I find your photos to be improvements. They're a little dark though. Can you lighten them a bit? or would you mind if I tried to lighten them just a bit?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, I would really like them to look their best. I own the entire DVD collection and if there are any shots you want for either Paige or Phoebe from any specific episode, just let me know. For Prue and Piper I was trying to find a moment where they truly looked the most beautiful. Evil silence (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you very much, ES!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

number of deaths

[edit]

Does the one in "All Hell Breaks Loose" being shot before the Source reverses time not count? 87.115.57.152 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Piper Halliwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Piper Halliwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to help with GAN

[edit]

@PanagiotisZois: and all interested parties, Good luck with the GAN. I just wanted to draw your attention to a couple of points that need attention.

  • The last appearance part of the Infobox should be removed as the character continues to make appearances in the comics.
Fixed.
  • The "Literature" subsection needs to be expanded as the portions about the comic books does not provide a comprehensive overview of the character's role in them. The comics have two full seasons (Season 9 and Season 10), but the subsection currently only covers up until the fourth issue of Season 9.
  • There are several portions of text without citations/references. The last half of the "Magical powers" subsection and the first paragraph of the "Literature" subsection are two examples of this.
  • The "Television" subsection is rather long and the prose can be tightened and improved. Understandably, the subsection will be rather long as she was one of the main stars of the show for all eight seasons.
  • The length of the "Powers and abilities" subsection seems rather excessive. I agree there should be an overview of her powers, but noting every single time she uses her powers in a new way is not necessary and should be cut down.
  • References 53, 54, and 58 need to be corrected.
Fixed.
  • References 51, 66, 13, 67, 52, 2, and 68 are dead and need to either be replaced or archived.

Again, good luck with the GAN; I think that this article requires more work before becoming a GA. Just trying to help out a little. I hope I do not come across as rude as it is awesome to meet another user that is interested in working on fictional characters and it would be cool to work together in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rude? Are you kidding? Not at all. :D I'm like, in awe of your work. Especially of the Russell family, the Jenkins sisters and Kyra. And I know what you mean, it is great to find another user that wants to improve character articles. If there's an article we're both interested in I'd love to work together. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That is very sweet. And you have done a lot of great work too. When I have more time in the future, we can definitely talk more about something to work on together. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would still recommend making these changes prior to a GAN as these are only a few things that I feel like limit this article from being a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably remove the GAN. Besides, right now I'm mostly focusing on Final Destination 3 anyway. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the best idea. Good luck with your work for Final Destination 3! Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Piper Halliwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  1. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Totally_Charmed/JnwvBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22charmed%22+and+%22piper%22+and+%22molecules%22&pg=PA18&printsec=frontcover (Scientific source on her molecular powers)

PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piper_Halliwell&oldid=1231515384"