Talk:Piper Halliwell

"Weeks?"

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)

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)

Birthdate

The article currently has a birthdate for Piper which is sourced using a screenshot from the show. Unless other specific evidence is presented, further changes to Piper's bithdate will be treated as vandalism. —MiraLuka 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I am no longer certain whether the screenshot says "8-7-73" or "6-7-73." I'm looking for the input of other editors here. (I also suggest that it remain as-is until this discussion is resolved, in order to avoid possible edit wars.) What do you think? —Mira 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the image, I'd venture that it is a three. March 7, 1973. A quick google for "Piper Halliwell" Birthday yields multiple results with that date. Not definitive, but I'd call it a majority vote :) ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for not responding, I guess I forgot about this. Now, a Google search for "Piper Halliwell" birthday "august 7" [1] gives me 70 results, as opposed to 9 for "Piper Halliwell" birthday "june 7" [2], and 19 for "Piper Halliwell" birthday "march 7" [3]. One of the links I get references a Charmed magazine as saying her birthday is in August. Would anyone happen to have a copy? —Mira 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's tight either way. When you switch the day and month, there's 16 for august, 1 for june, and 54 for march. June can be outright dismissed, as most/all it's entries are junk. Sigh, I don't know. oh well.

Oops, spoke too soon. Apparently, Issue 1 of the Official Charmed Magazine states 7 August 1973. see post

Also read this post on the same board, speaking of the massive inconsistancies in terms of birthdates in the show.

···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even think of putting the dates the other way, good catch. I agree that June is out of the running, and it looks like August is the winner. It would be nice if someone had the magazine to confirm, though. That, and the fact that I'm not entirely certain the image currently being used as a source qualifies for fair use. —Mira 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the image to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims because I tried to figure out what to do with it, but all of the copyright pages just confused me. :) —Mira 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting issue, though after reading Wikipedia:Publicity photos, I think it would fall into that category. Definitely professionally photographed, and typical higher-quality material found in press releases and such. Problem now is that there is really no way to identify the source. A quick Google search yields few instances of that image...mostly wikipedia and wiki mirrors. There's a super hi-res at hollymcombs.com [4] (unofficial, but labels it a promo image), and zap2it's Piper profile uses it. So nothing found that could be called official. ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there was some confusion there (my fault for not being specific enough). I meant this image, as it's only being used as "proof" of her birthdate. —Mira 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heh, color me sleep deprived for not catching that. My apologies. Still, shouldn't this from Fair Use cover it? "...involving critical commentary and analysis". I would think this should fall in the analysis category, though we'll see what the fair use claims folks have to say. I'll shut up now, for fear I'll make a further fool of myself ;) ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as Piper's birthdate is concerned, I would give very little weight to any dates taken from props. For example, the birthdate listed here is from the family tree, which is full of errors. Victor's surname is listed as Jones rather than Bennett. Grams apparently had a brother even though she states in "Necromancing the Stone" that before Wyatt, there have been no males born in the family for three hundred years and her date of death is listed as 1963 - before any of her grandchildren were born. Her husband Allen is named as Jack and his date of death listed as 1964 rather than 1967.

I wouldn't assume that any date taken from that source is accurate unless it can be backed up by spoken canon and that is not the case here, quite the reverse.

Had Piper been born on August 7, 1973 the younger version of herself would have been nineteen months old on March 24, 1975 when the Charmed Ones travelled back in time in "That 70s Episode" but she was clearly older than that.

In "Forever Charmed", Piper travels back to what seems to be the moment of Phoebe's conception, c. late February to early March 1975, at which point little Piper and little Prue are, according to Patty, almost three and five respectively. This would make Piper about three and a half years older than Phoebe and it fits better with the young version of Piper we saw in "That 70s Episode".

Factoring in that Piper - according to "Once Upon A Time" - is a Gemini, her birthdate should be somewhere between May 21 - June 20/21, 1972. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.198.198.113 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with your analysis, such is considered Original Research, which is disallowed under Wikipedia rules. Because the family tree date is the only one that has been solidly stated, even if it doesn't make sense, it won't be "wrong" unless superceded by a more correct figure. Thus, the current date must stay the same, even if it is logically impossible. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way to give a correct date since her birthday is never stated. The "Once Upon A Time" comment from Phoebe is the only key we have to a general area for Piper's date of birth since the family tree is loaded with errors and difficult to read calligraphy writing with a marker! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colethazor (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, we have a vague statement from an episode ('Gemini') compared with a questionable but fully written out DOB from the family tree. Be it questionable as it may, the family tree must be the first choice because it provides a firm answer not contravened by an equally firm answer elsewhere. Personally, I'd just as soon have the DOB removed entirely, because it isn't worth this silly contention; that said, it also should not be a *range* of dates, such as following the Zodiac sign would force. So what do you say, remove it entirely because neither answer is very reliable and this is obviously a minor contentious issue? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Irregardless..." DON'T USE THAT WORD EVER!!!!! PatrickLMT (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just looked through The Book of Three to see if it listed any birthdate, and the only birthdate it gave me was for Paige. (August 22, 1977) Can't find anything in any of the charmed magazines i have. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just list the year of her birth. I think all of us agree that 1973 is the year. I do think most folks want her birth to be in early August because that would mean her zodiac sign would be...Leo.

1973 can't be the year; Patty got the last word regarding ages in "Forever Charmed". Prue was 5 and Piper almost 3 when adult Piper went back in time. Since Patty didn't know that she was pregnant until March 24 1975, Piper must have gone back to a point before that date, leaving us with a year of birth of 1972.

Maybe Huntster is right; if the only date of birth we have is from a prop we know to be full of errors, a date contradicted by spoken canon, perhaps none should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.227.55 (talk) 22:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I just remixed that particular section, moving the question of her birthdate to the end so it doesn't distract from the flow of text. I think this should work as an alternate to outright deletion. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to the debate, I was checking the episode airdates (which have sometimes been used as the in-universe date, for instance Chris was born on the airdate May 16th 2004, and a year later Piper and Leo planned to celebrate his birthdate in "Death Becomes Them" airing on May 15th) when I noticed that "Prince Charmed", wherein Piper celebrated her birthdate, was aired in January. So, yet another inconsistancy if airdates are roughly equal to in-universe dates. Olympic (talk)

In season 3 episode 3, Phoebe calls Piper a Gemini, therefore her birthday is between ~May 21-June 21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.164.54 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Middle Name

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)

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

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

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.

Powers

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)

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

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)

Problems with power description

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why are you rehashing a 2 year old argument? The description is FINE. KellyAna (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars?

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)

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)

Footnotes

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)

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)

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)

Independent Research

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Most Powerful

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)

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)

Removing this part

"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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Main picture

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)

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).

Hey, t'isn't my rule, I'm just doing what was told to me. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Young Piper in Forever Charmed

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)

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

Vanquished an error

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)

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)

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)

If she could freeze good witches, wouldn't her sisters freeze as well? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Piperandleoswitch.JPG

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)

Topic

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)

Piper's Exploding Power

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:LeFemmePiper.jpg

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)

Image

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)

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)

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)

PIPER SURLY HALLIWELL

her name is NOT PIPER SURLY phoebe was saying this jokingly to piper because piper was being paranoid as to whether it rle was phoebe sorry if this sounds horrible its just being a charmed lover i really hate seeing mistakes like this im sorry to whoever did write it though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmless 77 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Images at the Charmed Wiki

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?
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New Screenshot

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)

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?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

 Done Thank you very much, ES!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

hey

hey piper it is tiffany i like charmed and the people in charmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.39.8 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

number of deaths

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)