Talk:Three's Company

message: John Ritter has passed away, therefore he won't be meeting anyone in Sept. 2008 (the last paragraph)..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.49.241 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, slow down with the racism, tiger. Not everything that sounds weird to you is black-people-speak. You could say it's "awkward" or "sounds wrong". :/ --Utopianfiat (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: err... that was written 8 months ago.  I think you're a bit too late to reply :P -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix Some Things

message: I made a slight change in this entry. There was nothing to indicate Lana had any wealth. If she did she certainly wouldn't be living in the same complex as Jack. 
99.53.168.194 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As specified in WP:TALK under "Layout", please start new topics at the bottom of talk pages.  This should have been said in a private message, but you have a dynamic IP.  -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lana

message: If I remember right, Jack's sexuality became a non-issue as the series progressed, that he didn't need to pertend he was gay any longer?
Nope, all the way through the last episode the current landlord always demanded that Jack be gay. In the final episode there is even a scene where Jack announces he will be moving in with his girlfriend and he says "This is a big step for me Mr. Furley!" and Furley is shocked by the news.
Also, didn't Suzanne Sommers have a reconciliation with John Ritter shortly before John's death?
JesseG 03:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Robin's sexuality became a non-issue in the original British series, Man About the House. However, Furley believed Jack was gay up to the end of the series. Also, I believe Joyce DeWitt, Suzanne Sommers, and John Ritter did all reconcile before Ritter's death. Redfarmer 02:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Anyone know why the Ropers left so early? Roman Soldier 20:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They got a spinoff show, The Ropers, which quickly failed. Mike H. That's hot 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not that this is very much on topic, but it didn't quickly fail, it's first season did well and it's second failed after being moved to a bad timeslot. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ropers

message: I didn't watch the show much, and I don't know what's meant by the word persuade in the sentence "Ralph, who tried on several occasions to "persuade" him, didn't find out Jack wasn't gay until the last episode..."  Does it mean Ralph try to convince Jack to be straight?  solargroovy 07:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it means Ralph Furley tried to change Jack into a heterosexual throughout the run of the show, only to find out in the last episode that he had really been heterosexual all along. -- Gerkinstock 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: Oddly, there is no mention of the two rejected pilots, or that fact that three actresses prior to Suzanne Somers were hired to play the "blonde girl" and one actress prior to Joyce DeWitt was hired to play the "brunette girl." -- Gerkinstock 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilots 

message: If no one is against this i think maybe a cast photo would be better.  If anyone could find one that is not copyrighted, expired etc. etc.  --TrevorLSciAct 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've given you lots of time, and no one has objected so I'm going to move it.TrevorLSciAct 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently some people do have a problem with it.  I left this in the talk page forever; you'd think anyone who cares would have read it by now.  TrevorLSciAct 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Main Picture 

message: I'm sorry, guys. I saw something I thought was vandalism... reverted it... unreverted it... someone made a change in the interim... I think it's all straightened out now. Sorry for the mix-up. -- Ben (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Redd trip-up 

message: I have reverted the edits by 63.118.56.110 and Tvqueen1969 because they removed significant sections of the article without giving a reason or any visible reason. This can be changed if necessary. Ian Goggin 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revertions 

message: Is the zoo in the opening the San Diego Zoo? I had always thought this show was set in SD. What is the background on it being in Santa Monica? Thanks. EdRooney 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentionned on top of this page, the talk page is not a forum or a place to discuss subjects that wouldn't help the article.  Try asking in http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=46 -- Lyverbe 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What was asked by EdRooney (more than a year ago, I might add) seemed to me to be nothing but a question for his own interest and not for the purpose to improve the article.  What is said in the article is backed up by a reference to a site that has pictures of the location the introduction was shot. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: San Diego Zoo?

message: honestly, one of the worst on wikipedia.  this was the #1 sitcom for a while, and was on reruns into the 90's (and is still on TV land) it needs some serious work. TrevorLSciAct 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree for stuff under "References in other media" (inclusively), but the rest is ok.  I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's "shit" and one of the worst.  Had a bad day Trev? :). -- Lyverbe 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yeah, wasn't in the best of moods when I wrote that :-S but it does need some work. TrevorLSciAct 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs work 

message: Guys, discuss about this.  Get your fact straight and stop this revert war.  -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war on ratings

message: I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm extremely skeptical about your article right now as it just appears to be a huge mess of WP:OR. Are there actually any secondary sources which document this phenomenon? Redfarmer (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What other sources are needed? I have all of my sources referenced in the article. Also, there is conversation about this on its talk page which is linked above. As far as I am concerned, the episodes themselves in which the crossovers occurred should be a good enough reference. Anything further about this should be posted on its talk page, please. - LA @ 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series 

message: Lady Aleena, I don't think you understand the purpose of the "related shows" fields (please read Template:Infobox_Television).  The idea is not to write "Man about the house" in all different languages it was translated into, but to write the original related show.  If a show was translated into 34 languages, you'd write 34 show names in there?! -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other series are siblings, thereby related, due to the fact that they share the same parent. That is my opinion anyway. - LA @ 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are totally different shows than Three's Company and directly connected to it (ie. spin-offs), then yes, they can be mentionned there.  If they're a mere voice translation, they shouldn't. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related shows 

message: Against it.  A popculture section brings no information to the subject of the article and end up being twice as big as the main section itself.  When you see such a section, it's usually a huge block of badly formatted text that looks like fan stuff and just ruins the quality of the article.  Honestly, who cares that some dude of some show said one single line that makes reference to TC?!  I have no idea why Wikipedia is allowing such useless junk.  So you guys want it, fine, it's available, but not in the main article please. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only about three paragraphs right now. I'm against it having its own article on that basis. Such articles should start in the main article and branch off when they have too much information or not at all. Redfarmer (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We once had such a section and I asked for objections to remove it in the talk page (see above inside "This article needs work").  After 1 week without any objection, I removed it.  You're saying it shouldn't be inside the main article when it gets too big - Would you like to undo this 8 months old delete into the new popculture page?  I don't care about having one, but not in the main article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I did what I suggested above.  Agree to remove the merge notice? -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging ''Three's Company in popular culture'' 

message: I spent about an hour creating an uploading sceen shots for all the characters of three's company, for their respective articles. If any person had looked at them it would be clear that they were fair use. But no, bots did, and they were speedily dleated, I don't have the effing files on my computer anymore, and I didn't have the time to go through and add rational to each one. It's insane, bots are ruining wikipedia. Just to be clear there was rational on each page, but I guess it wasn't enough, a real person could have explained it to me. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this helping the article?  In other words; this isn't the place to say this, mainly because your message won't reach the right people.  Complain to the bot owners or to the Village pump -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ha, I meant to ask if anyone has them saved on their computer to reupload, I guess I never got to that what with all my venting. And I don't suppose that anyone does but i thought I'd ask. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate bots! 

message: Hello!?! Phillips is her married name, Garvey was her maiden name.  
The character may appear only once, but was referenced many times, and her presence, or rather absence, is integral to the show's beginning.  This information seems far more relevant than many of the references here.  Rather than start an edit war, let's discuss it here.  If folks deem it unworthy of inclusion, so be it, and let's clean up the rest of the trash, too. Thebiggnome (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about her names. However, that doesn't prove that her name is Garvey-Phillips. When a woman marries, especially back then, she normally takes the name of her husband, so she became Eleanor Phillips, which is what she said her name was. Garvey-Phillips is unsourced so it doesn't belong in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  May I suggest a compromise? "Eleanor Phillips nee Garvey" would be the proper reference.Thebiggnome (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a bit too much information based on the relative unimportance of her name to the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm all for the "let's clean up the rest of the trash too" part :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be far more productive. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleanor's last name 

message: I don't feel this template should be part of the article because these writers created "Man About the House" but they did NOT create "Three's Company".  That being said, I believe the content of the template is wrong, but that's not the issue here. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CookeMortimer template 

message: An image used in this article, File:My Threes Company photo.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:My Threes Company photo.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:My Threes Company photo.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Who is Eleanor? That name is mentioned only once, in the first sentence of the plot summary. The summary does not explain who she is, and she is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. 98.235.32.78 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear plot summary (Eleanor?) 

message: On the website found at http://ctva.biz/US/TV-Ratings/CTVA_NielsenRatings_1978-1979.htm, it states that Three's Company placed #1 in the ratings in 1979, besting Laverne & Shirley. Is this CTVA website correct, or is Wikipedia? I have read on multiple different websites that Three's Company was #1 in 1979, with the last few episodes of the season pushing the series to its pinnacle, but this information could be incorrect. Could someone help please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.233.7 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the two sources (the one in Wikipedia and this CTVA one) are not reliable because they are not official sources.  That makes it hard to tell which one is right.  Since Wikipedia works with facts, perhaps we should remove the "Nielsen ratings" column. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nielsen ratings 

message: File:Threes-company-shadow.svg| White logo with shadow
File:Threes company logo.svg|White logo with black outline
File:Threes-company black logo.svg|Black logo
Hi, Lyverbe. I saw that you changed the shadow one with the one using the black outline. You said that the second one reads better than the other, which has been used often, included in DVDs. Why not switching back to the shadow one? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated my opinion in the Change Main Picture section above to which nobody replied.  The fact that there are no top and left edges on a white font against a white background makes it harder to read.  That's why I prefer the "Black outline" one better but that's only my personal opinion.  If the majority wants to go with the "shadow" one, we'll go with it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, Lyverbe, an RFC discussion? --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you mean by that.  A discussion here is fine but no need to start some big official Wikipedia post involving admins about it :)  Just give some time for others to give their opinion (3 days?) -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since RfC is too soon, I notified others at WT:TV. Also, here is the black logo. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. The black logo is easily, to me, most readable. OTOH, MOS:TV indicates: "For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used. Failing that, a home media cover may be used. If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used.", which suggests that readability may not be the primary concern. DonIago (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Anything but the shadow logo is fine with me. -- Lyverbe (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Changed to black logo. --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show logo 

message: * Provided it's an accurate representation of the logo as used across the franchise (does this show even have a "franchise"), I vastly prefer the solid-black version.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  15:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: uninvolved opinions

message: "Douglas Docker, an Italian ethnomusicologist, is well-known for forcing students at his Black Swan Rock School of Music to watch the unedited scene repeatedly as a composition excercise." - I really don't see how music could be related to the scrotum scene and have serious doubts about this statement.  It would be nice to have a solid ref other than a link to some italian book. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The poor referencing shows the "well-known" part is an embellishment at best and throws it all completely into the minor trivia realm.  Zero reason to keep this minor trivia. Ravensfire (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music vs. scrotum 

message: There should be a mention of the fact that this show caused some debate/protests over the sexual innuendos ands such back when it debuted. (see this link: Newsweek - sex and tv - http://fbibler.chez.com/newsweek.html and this one: https://tv.avclub.com/three-s-company-pushed-the-limits-of-double-entendres-o-1798259407 ). --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual content in the show sparked protest in the late seventies when it debuted. 

message: (Best  known as Dr. Bellows' wife on "I Dream of Jeannie")
Her Wikipedia article has:  "In 1979, she was reportedly scheduled to become a regular cast member on Three's Company after having appeared in the recurring role of Chrissy's boss, J.C. Braddock." 
On imdb, I found her in that role in 2 episodes in the above-mentioned show.  They aired in 1978-1979.  She died Oct. 8, 1979.  Her health could have cut into plans about being a regular here. Carlm0404 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emmaline Henry]] was to be a regular on this show? 

message: It's been widely misreported in recent years, and especially since Suzanne Somers' passing, that John Ritter was making $150,000 an episode in 1980 and that Somers in her contract dispute was simply asking to be paid the same as Ritter. This is simply a falsehood that Somers began spreading in her later years, and which some media outlets unquestioningly parroted. Chris Mann's book Come and Knock on Our Door, the definitive account of Three's Company, reports in Chapter 5 that Ritter was making $50,000 per episode in 1980, not $150,000. In the numerous interviews she gave at the time of the dispute, Somers never claimed she was seeking equal pay with Ritter, since she had in fact demanded an amount three times what Ritter was making at the time (in addition to a whopping 10% of the show's profits, which Ritter was not receiving either). Somers was basing her demand on the salaries being made by the highest-paid lead actors on television at the time, such as Alan Alda. I implore the editors to please not let this misinformation stand in this article. A minimal amount of fact-checking independent of Somers' revisionist history reveals that the claim of Ritter making 150k an episode is false. Eaglepen (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, you need the book to prove this and 99% of the viewers don't have it.  You say "A minimal amount of fact-checking" but I searched and searched to end up with nothing but 1 single page on yahoo.com that says this.  Everywhere else, it says Ritter was making $150k per episode.  I'm not saying that's it's false or impossible, but Wikipedia works with reliable sources and I'm having a hard time with this. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Ritter's salary