Talk:Fairly Legal

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Formatting

Do cast sections have to be ACTOR as CHARACTER? I've always seen (on almost every article) it as CHARACTER (ACTOR). Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MOS for TV, there are several methods. One is to just have prose instead of a list. Another is to have a plot description where the actor name is in parenthesis when mentioning the character in prose. (e.g. CHARACTER (ACTOR) is the younger sister....) Alternatively, there is "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format, which is followed by a semicolon, then a brief description of the character.

I am not sure what you mean about "I've always seen (on almost every article)", but by looking at the shows you have most recently edited, including Covert Affairs (A as C), Monk (C, portrayed by A), House (C(A) prose), The Office (unique), In Plain Sight (C(A) list), Burn Notice (A as C), Psych(C(A) list), Outsourced (A as C), Community (C(A) prose), and Royal Pains (C(A) list), I'd hardly say that phrase is accurate. Only 3 of those are in a CHARACTER (ACTOR) list format (which is not specifically mentioned in the MOS), like you reverted to in this article, but note that even in each of those examples, they all contain much more prose. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I guess I haven't noticed it in awhile. When I reverted, I thought they were all C (A). Sorry, I just never noticed they'd been changed. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop de-gaying Spencer

Reliable sources state that Spencer is gay, legally married to a man and a stay-at-home dad. Please stop deleting this verified information from the article. I Want My GayTV (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source looks valid to me, but the episode explicitly said that Terry is his wife. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'm fairly sure it said "wife." I'll check again. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Definitely "wife." It's at the 25 minute mark. I don't know why the source is wrong, but it appears to be. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not what was said. She uses the expression "speaking of wife" as a transition, which is misleading, but does not refer to Terry (a unisex name) as Spencer's wife. The producer has been interviewed and it's been well-publicized that Spencer is gay -- as documented by the generally reliable afterelton.com. I'm guessing that what happened is that Spencer might have been straight in the pilot and the change was made later, accounting for the odd line, or it might just be a slightly misleading so they can introduce him as gay later. Frankly, I wasn't aware he was gay in advance and it was obvious as a heart attack to me. Drmargi (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... guess you're right. Very misleading. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really is. That's what made me wonder if perhaps they meant him to be straight and made the change later. Drmargi (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably realized they could after they'd given the spouse a gender-neutral name. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the linked interview you'll see that Spencer was intended from the start to be gay, married and a parent. Michael Sardo talks at length about his interest in exploring the relationship dynamics of a same-sex couple raising kids based on his extensive conversations with gay writers on another series he worked on. My guess is that he made Spencer's husband's name gender-neutral because he wants the audience to relate to Spencer as a brother and a dad first and a gay man second. I Want My GayTV (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why assume we haven't? I have, and Sardo talks about development of the character, but never explicitly says he was gay from the beginning. A lot of changes are made between the pilot and subsequent episodes. Regardless, we're just spitballing. I wouldn't read too much into it. Drmargi (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well can someone source it then please - if it is not sourced then it should be removed as OR Chaosdruid (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article -- it IS sourced. Drmargi (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source talks about partner but does not mention anything about them being married does it ? If you read the reason for the cn ... Chaosdruid (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Spencer is married isn't in question -- that's addressed in dialogue. It's just a question of whether Terry is a man or a woman, which the afterelton interview with the show's creator clears up. Drmargi (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the characters

I think it's a good idea if we start expanding the information about the characters. There is only about one line or so per character. Desasu11 (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fairly Legal. 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) 17:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]