Talk:Prue Halliwell

Please check your facts

Few things I hate more than painstakingly writing something for an entry, only to have someone who doesn't bother to check their facts "correct" something I wrote with a mistake, so I have to come back and correct this "correction." This could be very easily avoided if people would make some kind of effort to check their information before they submit something to the article.

I fixed up a rather lame write up of past-Prue's powers. But then someone apparently decided the Prue wasn't really blowing across her hand, but using a compact. Gosh, this video shows that Prue has NOTHING in her hand. See 8:15 of this video of past Prue. Just prior to using her powers, you can easily see Prue's right hand (from behind, hanging from her side) and the fact that she has nothing in it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2zslIvEnsM&feature=related And less than three seconds later, she's using her powers. And the addition of the compact is especially interesting...since the date of this event was supposed to be in February of 1927, while compact foundation wasn't invented by Max Factor until 1936 and not patented until the following year.

Either take the fifteen minutes you would require to check your information, or kindly get lost. We don't need or want input from those who just add things willy-nilly because of what they think they see or know. PatrickLMT (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone added a ridiculous line to her powers about "telekinetic combustion" claiming that she can "blow things up like piper and move things hundreds of miles away." I suppose they are referring to the blonde future Prue in the scene in the attic. I'm not a wikimember but I'm removing this as it is poorly written and lacking punctuation and capitalization, and it is speculation, unnecessary, lacking proof, and "telekinetic combustion" is a pet-term created by the writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.251 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh … if you don't understand the rules of English grammar, don't edit, please. Corrected the clause which read, "she appears to be able to move up to 400 pounds (180 kg) with her mind, which is sufficient enough to lift and throw two adult sized figures with her powers." First, "sufficient enough" is redundant. "Sufficient" is sufficient. The sentence reads that Prue could move up to 400 pounds. "Adult sized figures" does not address weight. An adult-sized figure made of depleted uranium, for instance, could probably not be moved by 1000 Prues. So, just because an object is "adult-sized," it doesn't follow that Prue could move it. She wasn't able to move an adult sized marble statue, in "Which Prue Is It Anyway?" PatrickLMT (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Prue vs. Brianna

As I added to the main page, Prue's powers were not the strongest in the family line. Grams has displayed greater control than Prue, and the amount of weight she can lift probably rivals if not surpasses Prue's.

Brianna Warren (referenced in Which Prue Is It, Anyway?) is the one that really surprises me. Moving a sword "hundreds of miles" was obviously far beyond Prue's level of ability, even in her future incarnation. Yet, I thought the Charmed Ones were supposed to be the most powerful witches in the line. PatrickLMT 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Be careful to not get into the realm of original research, but I've always considered that statement (strongest witches) to mean "The Power of Three", not necessarily the sisters individually. Now I may be forgetting something... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, judgments cannot be made in this case because Prue only had her powers for three years, the other witches (Grams and Briana), we have to assume, had their powers since birth. She was, however, very powerful and she displayed the power of astral projection, which none of her ancestors have done. Also, personally, I always felt that the statement meant that the Charmed Ones had the strongest powers in the line individually in addition to being powerful together. I know that there is no way to be absolute, but in any case, I always believed that Prue would have become exponentially more powerful had she not died, perhaps even gaining the ability of projection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.170.93.59 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement that Prue only had her powers for three years is incorrect. As we all saw in That '70s Episode, Prue was at least born with her powers and had them till at least age four. Actually, as Phoebe demonstrated in that same episode (and Wyatt), witches have their powers in the womb. As for Prue's powers growing, one of the things I've noticed is that out of the three sisters, Prue's powers always seemed to be the ones that didn't grow. She's been able to move throw two adult-sized humans since season one, and has never surpassed that limit. It is true that she seemed much stronger in Morality Bites, but moving a sword hundreds of miles? Hardly. PatrickLMT 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally or not, I think Anon meant that the sisters had only been practically using their powers for three years by Prue's death. Because they had no memories of magic from their childhood, they had to learn to use it from scratch. I too question the "hundred-mile-sword" ability, but perhaps by the time she was 50, her powers would have grown to truly amazing levels. Either way, again, this topic is only theoretical and thus original research. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There was a statement earlier that I edited out that stated that Prue eventually would have surpassed Brianna and Grams in terms of sheer power, but that can only be theory, since no recognized authority in the continuity of their show -- an elder, whitelighter or higher demon -- ever said so. It is clear, however, that Prue's powers were not the strongest. She plainly admitted she could not duplicate Brianna's feat, and she has never lifted more than two people at a time, and has only simply thrown them. Grams, by contrast, moved three people once and actually maneuvered them in a complex path to throw them out of the manor. (Of course, it would have made more sense, if Grams truly believed them to be warlocks, to simply kill them, but then there would be no show.) It's PatrickLMT, by the way. I didn't log in before I typed this. Whoops.

This may be true that it was never stated on the show that Prue's power would ever exceed those of Grams or Brianna. Thinking about it logically Prue's power would have supassed both because 1)Prue was a Charmed One, supposedly the most powerful witches the world has ever seen. 2)In Morality Bites, Prue wrecked half of the attic with a simple wave of her hand. If she had focussed her mind and used more effort, then the effect of her power would have been greater, showing that at that time, 10 years after she got her powers, her powers were greatly advanced. And 3)When Prue died she had only had her powers for 3 years, where Brianna may have had at least 20 or 30 years experience and Grams had 67 years experience of using her power. After considering these three points one can logically extrapolate that Prue's power would have easily surpassed those of Grams and Brianna. Unfortunately this counts as original research and cannot be added to the article. Anyway I just wanted to make the point that Prue would have been more powerful than both of her ancestors.--NeilEvans 19:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't belong under the category "original research." It belongs under the category "speculation." 1) While it is true that Charmed has defined the Charmed ones as the "most powerful" witches (which was, incidentally disproven by Wyatt), Charmed has never defined what was meant by "most powerful." It does not ever say that the Charmed ones would necessarily have the strongest innate abilities. It could mean, for instance, that their powers as witches would be the strongest. There is strong empirical evidence for this theory. The Charmed ones, if they took the trouble to write down every spell, potion, ritual, etc., that they had ever originated on their own, they would probably double the size of the Book of Shadows. It could also mean that their "power of three" makes them the strongest force for good among witches. It took the power of three, for instance, to free Leo from possession. They have probably defeated, vanquished or otherwise destroyed more demons, warlocks, and other assorted nasties than their entire ancestral line combined. Or it could simply mean more talents. To the best of my knowledge, no witch outside of Melinda Warren has had more than power. "Most powerful witches" could simply mean any number of things apart from the strength of their innate abilties. 2) Upon what grounds do you say the effect would have been greater if Prue focused her effort? How do you even know that Prue's accidents were necessarily weaker than her deliberate efforts. In the first episode, her anger caused her to clear an entire store rack of its aspirin display. Focusing her efforts into deliberate acts didn't seem to make her stronger in the least. When she attacked Jeremy Burns in that same episode, all she managed to do was shove him back a foot or two. Doesn't look like any considerable difference in terms of strength to me. The other sisters have never shown any differences in terms of accidents or deliberate acts. Piper was forever accidentally freezing things, but it never seemed that she could freeze more when she made a deliberate effort. Phoebe's premonitions seemed to be entirely accidental for the longest time. It is true that she eventually learned to call premonitions at will, doing so did not seem to make them clearer or more vivid. 3) While surpassing Grams in terms of power seems a distinct possibly, surpassing Brianna seems far fetched. Prue has never demonstrated the abiltity to move anything hundreds of miles, or even one mile, or even the length of a football field, for that matter. I guess it's just one of those things we'll never know for certain. PatrickLMT 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be nit-picky but every time someone uses an event from the show to make a point, someone else uses another fact to to either disprove that fact or create a counter argument. This is all speculation! Any way we spin this, none of this can be taken as fact nor proven, unless someone involved with the show actually says something. Now, that being said, I did mean that the original sisters had only been practicing their magic for three years when Prue died. However, if there powers were bound and their memory of having magic was forgotten, then wouldn't it be like they never had it to begin with? (hypothetically speaking, anyway). Back to my original point the statement that the Charmed ones would be the strongest witches (culminated from the Warren Witch line) does mean both that individually they are the strongest witches and together as Charmed ones. This statement only encompasses the Charmed Ones, themselves, meaning after they were united stronger witches could arise (like Wyatt, Chris, and Billie). I still believe that had Prue not died her power level and powers themselves would surpass Brianna's powers. Now, in response to Grams's ability to move the sisters in that pattern (That 70s Episode); isn't is possible she cast a spell to do that, she said "demons begone" and raised her hands to them, then they moved out of the house. She did this again when she unfroze little Andy and removed his memory of magic (she also waved her hand will stating "he won't remember a thing"). And as for Prue's strength, in "All Hell Breaks Loose" she throws many people and a lot of equipment (from the reporters), people weigh a lot more than swords, had she concentrated (yes, concentrating does make their powers stronger, i.e. Piper's blows up the gate to the demon who kidnapped the firestarter) she could probably have moved the sword many miles (hundreds, probably not so much). Then again, we'll never now, she's dead and the show ended (damn shame if you ask me). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.170.93.59 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Can't agree with you here, either. But you, of course, are entitled to your opinion (as long as it doesn't make it to the article). You cannot say that Piper blew up the gate by concentrating or whether it was the culminated effort of three tries. There simply isn't any conclusive proof that concentrating made their powers stronger. Piper froze an entire city block by accident. She never tried to do any larger area in that episode.

"A lot of equipment"? That is palpable nonsense, as shown by this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_ChlY1-dQ&mode=related&search=

The only piece of equipment was a single camera held by one cameraman who stood next to the reporter, and I couldn't help but notice that the cameraman made his flight without the camera (he probably dropped it when he started to fly). That was the only equipment moved at all, unless you count the microphone held by the reporter (which probably weighed all of two pounds, if that), and the posterboard sign that an innocent was holding.

A spell? It would be the first and last spell that was ever seen in the entire series that was done without poetry. And Grams herself said (in "Charmed Again") that spells must be accomplished by rhyming (although Paige's Ludlow is vanquished haiku proved that to be incorrect, but technically, it was still poetry). And even if it were a spell, it should have accomplished nothing. She said, "Warlocks, begone!" Prue, Piper and Phoebe aren't warlocks, so a spell to expel warlocks would not have worked on them. It seems more likely that Grams used her telekinetic powers to expel the warlocks, especially since she gestured to do it. If they were warlocks, it seems more likely that any spell used by Grams would be used to kill them, rather than just expel them. (Why would she use a spell to simulate her innate abilities, anyway?) Grams has demonstrated that she has no compunction about vanquishing the nasties in front of the kids, when she vanquished the demon on Piper's eighth birthday. As for how she freed Andy without using a spell, that's tougher, but it's still entirely possible that Grams, having had experience in dealing with accidental freezings, since both her daughter and her grandaughter was born with the power to freeze, that she simply knew how to use her telekinetic powers to restore mobility in the frozen. And since when has ANYBODY frozen by Piper had memories of being frozen? Even Prue has shown that frozen objects can be moved telekinetically. Or it's entirely possible that she cast a spell on herself allowing her to unfreeze the frozen at will. Seems like a sensible thing to do, given the powers of both Patti and Piper. We can argue about this till the cows come home, but as you say, it's ALL speculation, including your Prue would have surpassed Grams theory.

As for your claim that the Charmed ones would be the strongest in terms of innate talents and spell casting capabilities, that is simply a bald assertion and not even worth addressing.

With that, I do agree that it's a shame that Prue died. I liked her much better than the bland, pasty Paige, and think the sisters as a whole were all better when she was a part of the series. PatrickLMT 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What many people keep forgetting is that it is constantly said in the show that they are the strongest TOGETHER. That's the reason why they live in the manor together. That's exactly why they have the power of three spell's. None of them could vanquish upper level demon's like the source on their own. Why do you think they needed the ancestor spell to vanquish him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.49.113 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Emmalee Thompson

Restored the asterisks in the Infobox that showed all three episodes in which Emmalee Thompson played young Prue. Someone, for some reason, removed the last two, referring to P3 H20 and We All Scream for Ice Cream, both of which showed young Prue played by Thompson. Please don't remove these again. PatrickLMT 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, oops. You edited as an anon, who has previously done this before with no reason given. The reason I've removed them is because it really is only necessary to include the first instance of guest-star role. The other instances can be mentioned elsewhere, such as a Trivia section (which I'm surprised she doesn't have). Look at the Infobox...one option is First Appearance, which is used for other characters, even minor ones. Not all appearances need to be listed in a single place. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's back now. Remove it again, and I will call the administrators to arbitrate this issue. This is not a first appearance option and Emmalee Thompson has no page of her own. More to the point, there is no such rule that dictates only first appearances need to be listed. If there is, show me. Or else, please leave it alone. Look at where it's listed. It says "Portrayed By," not "First Appearance." I am pointing out that Emalee Thompson portrayed Prue on three occassions only, not something she did regularly. The rules say that I have to assume good faith, but I must candidly tell you that in your case, I'm having an EXTREMELY hard time doing that. PatrickLMT 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Huntster, if you're the one who changed the asterisks to endnotes, I have to say, I LOVE IT! Much better than navigating the user away from the page. I wish I had thought of that. As I noted on the Piper page, the only suggestion I might have is that you could include a short note to make it clear that Emalee Thompson portrayed Prue at a young stage of her life, rather than the present day Prue. Just a thought. But maybe the footnote can read, "Portrayed Prue at age 4 in "That '70s Episode." Just for the sake of clarification. If you don't think it's a good idea, then I certainly wouldn't change it. I like your solution so much, that I wouldn't dream of tampering with it. (I know young Prue was supposed to be age four in That '70s Episode, but Emalee Thompson had to have been at least age six. But that's an understandable use of poetic license. To be consistent would have required a two year old to play young Piper. I can't see them teaching a two-year-old to do all that that young Piper did in that episode. I would guess Megan Corletto was at least age 4 when she played young Piper.) In any case, thanks for coming up with a good idea, and giving young, talented actresses the credit they deserve, which was my whole intention of including Emalee Thompson, Samantha Goldstein and Megan Corletto and Hunter Ansley Wryn on their respective pages.) PatrickLMT 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot take credit for this (read your talk page...I'd just as soon see their names removed as modified, but I refuse to get into an edit war over something so silly). This was Maelwys idea, and I'll agree that it looks better with refs than with asterisks. Still not a fan though. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I'm a huge fan of consistency and fairness (or at least I try to be). It simply makes no sense to credit Ellen Geer with playing Piper Halliwell, while snubbing Corletto and Wryn, who played the same role (and Corletto probably had more screen time as Piper than Geer). And it makes no sense to be "okay" with crediting Thompson as young Prue, but wanting to omit Corletto and Wryn as young Piper. And the Phoebe Halliwell page made even less sense. It credited Frances Bey with playing Phoebe (as she played "mature" Phoebe in the episode "The Three Faces of Phoebe") but it omitted Samantha Goldstein, who played young Phoebe in the exact same episode. I can't attribute this to a preference of adult actresses to child actresses, since Emmalee Thompson seems to be cool with everyone. So...why? PatrickLMT 10:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I cannot account for the previous inconsistancies. I've not been paying much mind to these pages, but my preference would be to only list the primary actress/actor for the given character, and simply make a note (and nothing more than a note) of who else has played the role at the bottom of the article. I find no reason to list guest-stars in the infobox for any character. Does that make sense, or seem reasonable? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In that respect, I agree with you. I simply didn't think it was fair to credit Geer and Thompson, but not Corletto, Wryn and Goldstein. Perhaps the best thing to do would be give them a seperate entry of sorts, listing Shannen Doherty as playing Prue, and a separate category for those who "guested" as Prue. But I do see your point and I didn't before. If you ask anybody whose followed the series who played Prue, only the most anal retentive would answer "Shannen Doherty while Emmalee Thompson played a younger version of Prue on three episodes." Most will simply tell you Shannen. PatrickLMT 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm the one that changed all the *'s into refs, because I thought the *s looks horrible. But doing this wasn't meant as an endorsement of having those actors names listed there, just an attempt to find a more visually pleasing way to do so. But if we're going to start going crazy with other guest actors that've played the main characters (ie: the "glamoured" versions of characters from the final season, body-swapping versions like when Brian Krause "played" Piper a couple times, etc) then I'd just as soon remove all but the main actor and move the rest to a list somewhere else in the article, possibly with a link to the list from the "Played by:" section of the infobox. Such as "Played by: Shannon Dougherty (and others)" (where "others" links to "#Other Actors" that lists all the occasions and reasons why other actors played that character). Just another idea... --Maelwys 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oi, very sorry Maelwys, I don't know why I said Neil instead of you (must have been tired, changed above). What you wrote about going crazy with guests is exactly my fear. Patrick, if you don't mind, I'll give that detached crediting thing a try and see what everyone thinks of it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I think it's a much better idea. My own frustrations with this really stem from my viewings on this board. I have made a few corrections to the general text, then I noticed that Piper was listed as being played by Holly Marie Combs and Ellen Geer. Once I learned who she was, I decided that, technically, that's correct. Geer does indeed play Piper. But then again, what becomes the rationale for crediting Geer, but snubbing Megan Corletto and Hunter Ansley Wryn, who both played younger versions of Piper. So, in the interest of fairness, I placed them. They stayed for a time, then were removed by someone who didn't bother to post their changes or why. Strangely Geer remained, which made no sense to me whatsoever. Either keep all the guests off or put them all on. I can't see the reason to include one but snub the other two. So, I put them back, annoyed at why someone should be so determined to put up Ellen Geer but leave out the child actresses. Besides, those credit notations are a nuisance, as each word in episode titles is case sensitive. A link to We All Scream For Ice Cream goes nowhere, because the "for" in the episode title is lower cased. Then decided, well, Emalee Thompson played a Young Prue. So, again, in the interest of consistency, I put her up, too. On the Phoebe page, Frances Bey is credited with playing Phoebe, but Samantha Goldstein was omitted. That's especially strange, since they were on the exact same episode. What was that person thinking?

But if you want to give them a seperate category, by all means. And I agree with Maelwys above. This could get a little sticky, actually. Should we now list Phoebe as being played by Rose McGowan, and Paige and being played by Alyssa Milano, since they once swapped bodies? Then of course, the actor who played the Zen master should be credited as playing Piper, since Piper swapped bodies with him. Let's visit Cole's page and list Holly Marie Combs as playing Cole, too, since Cole once impersonated her. And Debbi Morgan, since Cole once impersonated the Seer.

Bottom line on my own opinion: Either leave all the guest stars off, or include all of them. None of this including Ellen Geer, but omitting Corletto and Wryn. It's just not consistent, or accurate. Besides, I thought the child actors playing the charmed ones were adorable. Particularly the bickering between Corletto and Thompson as young Piper and Prue. Priceless. Give these young up and comers their credit.

So, whatever you think is the best way to fix this is fine with me, Huntster. I apologize for any friction between us, but I hope my rather long winded reply will help you understand where it was coming from. PatrickLMT 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, don't even worry about being long-winded or babbling, you ought to see some of the talk page entries I've left in the past...whew! :) Your rationale makes perfect sense, and comes from a direction I have not previously considered, mostly because I don't really pay any attention to guest stars (simply not on my radar). I don't see any friction, just healthy back and forth trying to figure out the best method to handle a problem. I'll make the modification to this article first when I have some time, and if it meets approval, I'll change the others. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Prue's Funeral

The line describing the type of funeral she had makes no sense where it is. This should be in the paragraph describing her death. Missjessica254 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What else would you like to add to the article? I don't know of other material to include...it didn't last that long. "Wiccan funeral" seems acceptable to me. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to come back and say that I edited the line out as it is repeated in the section about her funeral. Missjessica254 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that people can just learn how to astral project? Does that mean that Prue's power wasn't one she'd inherited as an advancement of her powers? Tito2130 12:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Astral Projection was an enhancement of her power. She is basically moving herself with her mind.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 15:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And also, whether astral projection is "real" or not, it is not, as we understand it, the ability to create a tangible, visible form with their minds. PatrickLMT 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look in future episodes as the charmed ones it is demonstrated that they can share Paiges Glamouring Power and Prues Astral Projection because there so intuitively connected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.15.58 (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Romantic Relationships

I was looking at the revert that was done recently to the Prue article. I was wondering why the mention of Justin from season three was not kept in? Missjessica254 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In-universe?

...since wiki is supposed to focus on in-universe just a little bit, there should probably be some mention of why Shannon Doherty left the show. I don't want to put the tag up, since I'm guessing you guys don't want the wikipedia watchdogs demanding you rewrite all your articles, but it would at the least be professional to add that information, since it seems highly relevant.KrytenKoro 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as the Charmed article points out, is that no one really knows why Doherty left the show. At this time, it's impossible to write about it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Per WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, out-of-universe notability needs to be asserted and independent, non-trivial verifiable sources provided. The Charmed character articles have none of the above. Could interested editors perhaps redress these concerns. Otherwise, this should be redirect and the information merged to the main list of characters page. Eusebeus 19:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhhh guys?

Prue died 5 times. Remember when she copied herself twice and both clones were subsequently murdered? She said she felt apart of herself die. Shouldn't those count?

No. You can't kill a copy and have it count. KellyAna (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

it should count. phoebe's future self was killed and that counted. the copies were prue, just different aspects of her. that should be counted. Jpagan09 (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Phoebe's future self was her. The two Prue's were copies of the original and not Prue. Do not change the page without consensus. Previous edits indicate a consensus that it should not be changed. KellyAna (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Prue's Death

I re-worked the section about Prue's death. It looked as if a few different people wrote it, so I just put all the parts together. If you don't like it, reverse it I guess. Here is my reasoning for what I did:

• The events that took place that killed her was Shax came in the house and killed her and the doctor. Time was reversed, so everything that had just happened the first time Shax came in and almost killed them didn't actually happen. I explained those events (summarized as much as I possibly could) in the next paragraph, but it comes down to the fact that she just died when Shax threw her into the wall.
• I added the fact that the doctor died too, because in all actuality, to save Piper, they sacrificed the doctor. Yes, I know his name is Dr. Griffin, but I didn't think that was important to this section.
• The explanation of Prue's death was previously incoherent at best. It included term's such as, "wanna-be" and "Interestingly,..."

It is very difficult to explain the events of her death without explaining the whole episode, but I tried to cliff note's it as much as I could.

I also have reference information on why Shannon Doherty left the show if someone says that they think it's appropriate for this article. Chexmix53 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were completely point of view. They've been reverted. The problem with "explaining the whole episode" is that not everyone sees what is seen on screen the same. Regarding Shannon leaving, there's no definitive article with verifiable proof in existence. KellyAna (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No they were not point of view, they were the accepted facts of the show! That is what actually happened. At least my version meets Wikipedia standards. Explain to me how they were points of view. It just sounds like you wrote the last article and you are somehow offended that I changed it. Chexmix53 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New Screenshot

I HATED that picture that someone put up, a pixelated image of her from a smaller image. So I uploaded a really nice screenshot of her from 2x03, "The Painted World". What do you think? Evil silence (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, ES, absolutely gorgeous! Hope you also like them after some light balancing. Piper, Prue and Paige so far. Exquisite!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone take off the last appearance under Prue's name. There shouldn't be one since she is in the comics. They did the same for charmed wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.209.15 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Prue's job at Buckland's

This page claims that Prue was an appraiser at Buckland's. However, in Thank You For Not Morphing, Prue tells Victor that he should take his ring to appraisals instead of her. 82.11.169.69 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prue 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews/c/charmed.shtml

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prue 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?18247

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Prue 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=105320&page=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/alyssa-milano-shannen-doherty-feud-charmed_n_3577245.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://nypost.com/2001/06/14/charmed-im-sure-rose-mcgowans-p-for-perfect/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,129489,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160613050251/http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/feature/a792330/how-charmed-lost-its-charm-what-went-wrong-with-the-magical-hit/ to http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/feature/a792330/how-charmed-lost-its-charm-what-went-wrong-with-the-magical-hit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030211104905/http://www.thecharmedones.com/dianagallagher.htm to http://www.thecharmedones.com/dianagallagher.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tvtango.com/asc/charmed/awards/sort/awardName?filters%5Byearaward%5D=&filters%5Bnomorwin%5D=&filters%5Bperson%5D=&filters%5Bawardname%5D=&commit.x=20&commit.y=11
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/tv/charmed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905112325/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/charmedseason1.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/charmedseason1.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aoltv.com/2007/10/22/top-tv-witches/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicmix.com/2008/10/31/aol-picks-tvs-best-witches/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://shriek.20m.com/script.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.accesshollywood.com/tori-and-shannen-a-notorious-feud_article_474

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) 09:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)