Jump to content

Talk:Friends/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Edit request on 19 August 2012

In the section "Characters", it states that Phoebe, played by Lisa Kudrow, lived in uptown New York until the age of 12 when her mother killed herself. This is incorrect, because she was 14 when her mother killed herself. It would be helpful for all readers if this mistake was corrected. 99.122.116.249 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please link Scott Silveri to his Wikipedia page -81.152.124.44 (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed Phoebes age when her mum committed suicide

I changed her age from 12, to "Around 13" to line up with the information listed on Pheobe's Buffays wikipedia page. They should at least be consistant.

This also lines up closer with the info on http://friends.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_Buffay

I realise neither of these are proper sources, but There is absolutely no reason to list 3 separate ages. So until we can find some actual evidence (im looking for it) we should attempt to be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.163.214 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is No. of episodes 236 or 238?

Which is correct No. of episodes is 236 or 238? It is written as 238 in Interview of Gunther. --Bcxfu75k (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

There was a major sexual harassment lawsuit against the show, based on happenings in the writers' room. This needs to go in.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean the lawsuit that was thrown out in a unanimous decision because it was utterly baseless? I don't think a single disgruntled employee's dismissed lawsuit qualifies as "a major sexual harassment lawsuit". It was a frivolous lawsuit and the judges found that everything the woman had issues with was simply part of the creative process required for writing a TV show aimed at adults. --auburnpilot talk 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit

Opening paragraph, "Many critics now regard it as one of the finest shows in television history," If ever, authentication was needed.... a bit too fluffy. Can this be omitted and something more analytical replacing it? eg. "Many reviewers regard it as one of the most popular sitcoms in television history," - AL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.20.128 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Season 11 Is it true?

I have heard that the 11th season is going to come. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.201.75 (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it has been stated quite clearly by the creators that it isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Greene, not Green

Rachel's last name is spelled "Greene", not "Green". There is a sign on her office door at Bloomingdale's with her name on it, and it clearly says "Greene", NOT "Green". I changed it, but it was reverted back to the original spelling. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The spelling of Rachel's last name is inconsistent. Yes, it is spelled "Greene' on her door but other sources show it as "Green". This is explained in the "Surname" section of Rachel Green.
"Some inconsistency in the spelling of the surname has led to confusion as to the correct spelling. The credits of any episode where her parents appeared list their last name as "Green" and on the Warner Bros. Friends Official Website the biography on Jennifer Aniston states her character's name as Rachel Green. However, in certain episodes it is seen to be spelled "Greene" such as when her name was written on an invitation sent out by Ross and a subsequent RSVP. Finally, Jennifer Aniston confirmed that the name Green was spelled: G-R-E-E-N."
For these reasons, we use "Green". --AussieLegend (✉) 03:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Stylization of title

Do you guys think it's necessary to indicate that the title was stylized as F•R•I•E•N•D•S? Personally I would remove it because I think it feels bulky and repetitive in the article. I'd like to hear opinions on this because I know if I removed it someone would revert the edit. What does the stylization add to the article? CityMorgue (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not repetitive at all it's only in the first sentence of the article. And yeah is need because some people (less knowledged about Wikipedia) would wonder why that's not the actual title of the article. — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Tomica. However, I can't believe that people would have a hard time understanding that title design in the opening credits is simply a visual logo for the show and not the way it would be written/referred to as. I think people can comprehend that. But I respect your opinion. I still think it looks weird and out of place. CityMorgue (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not out of place at all. Just look at bunch of articles, examples "You and I (Lady Gaga song)", Rated R: Remixed etc etc. — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the decision to remove it- it came across as a little silly, but more importantly as misleading, since the dots were (to me) obviously just graphical design flourishes and not part of the name itself! With something like M*A*S*H, the asterisks were a part of the title and reproduced that way in (e.g.) TV listings. I've never seen Friends referred to that way anywhere outside the article. Ubcule (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

46.128.233.82 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Friends starring Eugene Anderson

Not done. Please reword your request, as it is not intelligible. Nymf (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy edited section "Film Rumors"

PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

please add the following link to the external links sections.this link is for the website where it lists all the tracks,songs and BGM's used in the entire show. http://www.friends-tv.org/music.html KUMANAN KABILAN 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC) KUMANAN KABILAN 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 Appears to be an anonymous fan site and therefore inclusion would be contrary to WP:ELNO. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently airs in India on 'Romedy Now'

The show currently airs in India in a channel called "Romedy Now" on weekdays at 8p.m in english along with english subtitles.

122.167.215.239 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Vikramraj (viku20072000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.215.239 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a reliable source, the channel's official website: http://www.romedynow.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.202.241 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the whole International section in this article is unnecessary. The show has been aired all over the world and there is only few countries mentioned... But one would say that Wikipedia is never finished. --Cary (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mundo Estranho

Mundo Estranho is an obscure Brazilian teen magazine. Considering the weakness of this source, their rating of Friends among other shows is not worthy of inclusion in the intro section, and was probably planted by a Mundo Estranho employee or fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.195.14 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Phoebe - a schizophrenic?

Is she? In one episode she said (after loud noize had stopped) that she finally hear voices in her head again. Is that a symptom of schizophrenia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.34.204.94 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

This edit promoted me to verify all of the figures in the ratings table but it appears that the source used for all ratings is self-published and therefore not usable. I initially tagged the figures with {{better source}} but investigation has shown that, prior to these edits on 21 October 2013 a better source existed. For that reason, and since this article is GA, I have reverted the table to that version. This required reverting other edits made in October 2014,[1] as they were based on the self-published source. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Both sources seem self-published/non-official but the one you re-added has some inconsistencies in relation to other shows. For example, This source lists the Seinfeld season 6 audience figure as 19.6 million when it's actually 30.06 million. Another inconsistency is that the same source given above ranks Friends season 1 at #9 when this one, like the other one, ranks it at #8. Another thing I want to point out is that the source you removed is very accurate though it may be self published. Here is an official list of the season 1 ratings of Friends and Here is the same exact figures on the "self published" source. The other source was more accurate with the ratings so I'm going to revert it.Annvarie (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We can't use self-published sources as references at all, regardless of whether or not they seem accurate, so reverting to the later version isn't a useful option if it is based on a self-published source. Removing that source, as is necessary, leaves us only with figures for the most watched episodes. I have removed the citation from the SPS and the figures that were sourced from that site. They can only be restored if they are supported with citations from reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Salary math is not adding up

In the section titled 'Cast the following claim is stated:

"The cast members received different salaries in the second season, beginning from the $20,000 range to $40,000 per episode.[24][25] Before their salary negotiations for the third season, the cast decided to enter collective negotiations, despite Warner Bros.' preference for individual deals.[26] The actors were given the salary of the least-paid cast member, meaning Aniston and Schwimmer had their salaries reduced. The stars were paid $75,000 per episode in season three..."

If Schwimmer and Aniston were paid were paid $40,000 per episode in season 2, and then are paid $75,000 during season 3, how is that having their "salary reduced"? The citations used in that section do not seems to explain this detail at all.--JOJ Hutton 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

please change ((English)) to ((English language|English)) 73.214.30.202 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done by someone else. Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Friends" Reunión in febraury

The cast will reunite for a two hour tv special on 21/02/2016 (more info check here: http://www.elseptimoarte.net/el-reparto-de--friends--volvera-a-reunirse-en-febrero-25975.html) Please add this to the article!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Phoebe claims in season 2, The One Where Old Yeller Dies, that she had never seen the Disney movie, Bambi, but in season 6, The One Where Chandler Can't Cry she said that she "cried for three days after that." But then goes on to say "No, 2. Cause on the third day my mother killed herself, so I was partly crying for that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.85.134 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a simple continuity issue. All TV programs have them. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Lindsay Michael Toms is a co creator of the show F.R.I.E.N.D.S Blinndsay (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  06:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Friends. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Friends. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Friends. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Inspired by Singles ?

According to the IMDB profile, Warner Brothers wanted to Singles into a series, but were turned down. Did Cameron Crowe ever voice any concern over the similarities between the two projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.212.15 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Friends. 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) 19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Friends. 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) 14:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends. 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) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reunion 2016

This actually happened last year. But its been reverted. An editorhas een revertiving my edits (they say it's my responsibility to fix or leave it out) but do thye mean that in wording? Do I need more sources? I just don't know. I intend to revert his own edits because it is true (search on Youtube please) and because I think it might be useful to advance the discussion. I didn't want to use youtube as a source becase at some point in future it may be taken down. I told the editor we could work on a compromise but they were not willing. Best wishes.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends. 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) 15:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ratings Chart

If someone knows how to make one, is it possible to add a ratings bar chart on the Ratings section of the page? - XtremeNerdz12

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

change website to https://www.warnerbros.com/tv/friends-complete-series-collection 197.165.182.238 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done. I imagine your issue is that the link we have is dead; the problem is, there's nothing at your link to indicate this page is the official website. I Googled "Friends" "official website" and "Friends" "official site" and couldn't find anything so I just removed the dead link. CityOfSilver 18:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

85.92.185.195 (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

In the section Season 6, please change "because he doesn't want to have three divorces. However, he realized he couldn't" to "because he does not want to have three divorces. However, he realized he could not". This per Wikipedia:Contractions. 5.151.0.118 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends. 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) 05:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends. 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) 07:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Rumors section

Should the rumors section be in the article? I feel like it should be removed. Per WP:RUMOUR, it states "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." What do you guys think? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a hollywood gossip rag. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing?

At the time of GA review (and not much has changed), this article included the text When Matt LeBlanc auditioned for Joey, he put a "different spin" on Joey. The writers did not originally intend for Joey to be dim, but found it to be a major source of comedy. LeBlanc also gave the character heart, which the writers did not realize Joey had. This seems to me to be much too close for comfort to the source's Matt LeBlanc put a different spin on Joey, when he auditioned. ... When we wrote it, I don’t think we realized that Joey was dim, and that was going to be a major source of comedy. ... And that he had heart. Moving a subordinate clause from the end of the sentence to the start and putting quotation marks around two words when literally every other word of the sentence is quoted is not generally considered acceptable.

I hate accessing entertainment news sources because of the loading times, but how much of the rest of this article's text is plagiarized? (I only noticed this because the word "dim" didn't seem like the kind of word a Wikipedian would come up with for this article had the source said "an idiot" or some such; I checked and found nearly the entire sentence, and much of the following two sentences, to be listed almost word-for-word.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Stylized as

@The brave celery: I've removed the "stylized as" entry previously added here and restored by The brave celery in here for the same reason it was removed the first time.

As per my previous comment, there's no indication that the dots in the supposed "stylization" are anything other than graphical flourishes, i.e. not part of the title itself. Unlike (say) M*A*S*H, it was never- to the best of my knowledge- ever written that way in the media at the time, nor is there any indication it was meant to be written that way.

Can you show otherwise via reputable sources? If so, please do. Otherwise please leave this out (along with other users adding silly "stylized as" entries that attempt- often badly- to render purely graphical aspects of logos as text!) Ubcule (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Good revert. I've never been a fan of this wording; we might as well say "stylized as f•R•I•E•N•D•s" since the curvature on the "f" makes it not look upper-case, and there's no reason to assume the "s" is upper-case. The name of the show is Friends. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: @I am aman goyal: More of this nonsense removed again.
I've added an in-article comment explicitly drawing attention to the fact that MOS:TMSTYLE effectively restricts "stylized as" to text stylisations only, and excludes "other elaborate effects" that go beyond this. The dots here are purely graphical frills, as evidenced by the fact that there's no sign that any official or reputable source ever put it in *writing* as "F.R.I.E.N.D.S". Therefore, the "stylized as" doesn't belong, unless it can be proved otherwise. End of story. Ubcule (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

Please remove the third sentence of the article, "It is widely regarded as one of the greatest TV shows of all time." This is mere opinion and there are no citations associated with this opinion. Opinions should not be presented as fact. If you must maintain a form of this concept, a better phrasing would be something like, "Many critics believe this is one of the greatest TV shows of all time," then cite critics espousing such a viewpoint. Alternatively, "The show has been praised by critics, or the show is critically acclaimed," or something along those lines would be more appropriate. This form states a fact that can be proven and cited and not an opinion that is unsubstantiated and unprofessional. Opinions have no place in scholarly articles. 100.11.104.80 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done There is adequately sourced discussion about the critical reception in the last paragraph of the lead section, so that sentence is just hyperbole. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Should the article add a subheading off of the "Cast and "Characters" to talk about supporting characters such as Jack and Judy Geller and many more such as Gunther? Though they are supporting characters, they contribute to the show and the main characters interactions. Any thoughts and feedback on this idea would be appreciated before I officially contribute to the article. Graciefoy (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Graciefoy, I agree. Characters like Jack, Gunther, Judy, Carol, Susan, Dr. Green, Mike, David, Gary, Richard, Mrs. Green and the like are kind of essential to the show. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request?

While reading the article I came across two possible contributions that might need to be changed. I would like your opinion on if it needs to be done. In the season 7 synopsis the word "Armadillo" is linked. Does it need to be linked? In the season 9 synopsis the word friends is put in quotation marks though it is not regarding the title of the show. Does it need to be put in quotation marks? Thanks! Graciefoy (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with linking Armadillo as it probably reduces the chance of readers getting confused over which Armadillo the synopsis might be referring to. In the latter case, I think the word is put in quotation marks so as to distinguish it from the title. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not think there is an issue with linking Armadillo. This way if someone is unsure of the context of the word, they will have easy access to the definition. I also think that the word friends can be left in quotations so that it does not get confused with the title of the show.Wxyz1234567 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Friends is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Friends (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Friends (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Friends has been nominated for discussion

Category:Friends, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

Jennifer Aniston as Rachel Green: It states "In the final episode of the series, Ross and Rachel confess their love for each other, and Rachel gives up a job in Paris to be with him." It is never said that she gave up her job for Ross, it is such an assumption. For all we know Ross went to Paris with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:70CF:B700:8050:9801:56A0:6A36 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-runs in Norway

Please do mention that in Norway Friends has been on constantly re-runs since 2004, first on TV2 and now in TVNorge (TVNorway) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.206.106 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Distributor

Why is Warner Bros. Television the distributor and not NBC? Hasn't paid NBC the whole production costs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.71.224 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

The women characters in the show, Rachel, Pheobe and Monica were purposely given different kinds of child birth. Rachel was a single monther, Pheobe was a surrogate for her brother's children and Monica chose to adopt. They wanted to show that child birth is beautiful no matter which kind. Lekhapra (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019

184.190.44.233 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

friends are some one who does not stabe you in the back and waches out for you

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Paige Surtees

I don’t think the word armadillo is a problem because someone might get confused by the context and yes it needs to be linked. By the quotation marks I think it’s relevant because of the confusion it might cause Paige Surtees (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the word armadillo is a problem because someone might get confused by the context and yes it needs to be linked. By the quotation marks I think it’s relevant because of the confusion it might cause Paige Surtees (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Friends

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Fixed up a few issues with the close paraphrasing. Everything else is quotes or most likely copied from here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Per this, the article contains at least some very close paraphrasing, which the original GA review apparently missed, and containing a full sentence that was not appropriately marked as a quotation should have been an autofail, IMO. I don't have the time or inclination to go through the whole article and rewrite everything so that it accords with Wikipedia policy (and GACR2d); if someone else wants to do so they are welcome to, but I don't see that happening.

The plot summary is also a bit crufty and doesn't make internal sense (Mike Hannigan and David the Science Guy should not be introduced in the same sentence, if David is even noteworthy enough to be mentioned at all).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Sent a notification to the previous reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hijiri88: I ran earwigs tool here. The 98.5% reliability is to a wiki and likely copied from this article. The 44% confidence ones all seem to be from reprints from the same article and most seem to be quotes or part mentions.[2] The discovered close paraphrasing is easily fixable so I am not inclined to delist it for copy violations unless there are more examples. However, I am not particularly fond of the character descriptions. Anything that is not describing actions (plot) should be cited or it reads like WP:OR. For example Phoebe is ditsy but street smart. She writes and sings her own quirky songs, accompanying herself on the guitar. She has an "evil" identical twin named Ursula, who shares Phoebe’s quirkiness, but, unlike Phoebe, seems to be selfish and uncaring. Phoebe is childlike and innocent in disposition. There are similar things for other characters. The rest is pretty good though so I would be tempted to trim out the character descriptions, fix the above sentence and keep it as a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Characters image

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC with a summary of the discussion. This discussion is about File:Friends Characters.png, which was deleted under WP:NFCC#1.

Bi-on-ic, Igordebraga, Akcvtt, and George Ho supported restoring the image. The editors argued that WP:NFCC#1 does not apply because there is no free equivalent. Bi-on-ic argued that the free images on Commons are of the cast in their middle age and not how they looked like during the show's run from 1999 to 2004.

Explicit, the deleting admin, argued that WP:NFCC#1 does apply because there are free equivalents. Explicit said that photos can be used of the cast members "during the show's 1994–2004 run (like File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg and File:Matt Le Blanc.jpg) or images taken a few years after it ended that don't show any significant difference in appearance (like File:David Schwimmer.jpg and File:Lisa Kudrow 2.jpg)".

Bi-on-ic responded that those images are not free equivalents because they show only parts of the actors' faces or sunglasses.

A talk page discussion is not the right forum to seek overturning the deletion of the image. I recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article needs the picture of the series' characters. It does not violate WP:NFCC#1. There is no free equivalent. The free images of the Commons are photos of the cast in their middle age not how they looked over the show's run. Purpose of use is illustrating the main characters not the cast. The whole idea and concept of the show are portraying a group of single people in their mid-20s and the appearance is part of their persona. This photo makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the characterizations, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The previous images were half-face photos of the cast in shades! It's an ensemble cast of a famous TV show so the readers should know what the characters look like. Bionic (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Pinging Explicit who deleted the image. I somehow concur that the cast photo would be needed (whether free or not), but I am unsure whether the RFC would prompt un-deletion or re-creation of the non-free image. Instead, if the deletion is not undone (just for the image to be reinserted and then taken to FFD), then WP:DRV would be the way to go. George Ho (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC); edited, 06:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no automatic entitlement to a non-free cast photo simply because a freely licensed one does not exist. As WP:NFLISTS states, "For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media." Bionic's statement claims that the non-free photo shows "a group of single people in their mid-20s and the appearance is part of their persona", but readily ignores that the opening paragraph of this very article: "the show revolves around six friends in their 20s and 30s..." We either have perfectly adequate and licensed images of each actor that were taken either during the show's 1994–2004 run (like File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg and File:Matt Le Blanc.jpg) or images taken a few years after it ended that don't show any significant difference in appearance (like File:David Schwimmer.jpg and File:Lisa Kudrow 2.jpg). Policy simply does not support the inclusion of the non-free cast photo in this case. ƏXPLICIT 05:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
As for the free images, I linked to alternatives where they are better positioned to show their face. Is Courteney Cox wearing sunglasses in her photo really so detrimental that a non-free image is merited? ƏXPLICIT 07:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Clearly the problem is not just about the sunglasses of Courteney Cox & Matthew Perry!... The other reasons are already mentioned above.
And no It's not a WP:WAX discussion. The thing is that when Wikipedia's administrators were choosing those articles as good/featured they were aware of the fact that a non-free magazine cover is used in a WP:BLP but there was a discussion about the need of those pictures and a conclusion that led to the use of the image in the article. To sum up, I don't think that according to the Wikipedia policies it's absolutely impossible for this article to have a small low-resolution image which significantly contributes to the article. Bionic (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

Under the heading" Cultural Impact". I want to add that theres one more FRIENDS themed cafe in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Named as Central Kafe. Soma2792 (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

I want to change the description from “six friends” to “six white friends” since the description for the tv series Living Single describes them as “six black friends” 47.201.39.12 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you're requesting this to make a WP:POINT. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

In the Reunion section, there is the word Friends, when it is supposed to be italic. 69.165.147.219 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC(talk) 13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

Change the following poorly worded sentence under "Blu-ray and DVD" that begins, "In Australia, the original....." :


Blu-ray and DVD . . In Australia, the original released DVDs were released were fold out box sets which contained three discs and released as follows: Season 1 and Season 2 on March 13, 2002, Season 3 and Season 4 on July 9, 2002, Season 5, 6 and 7 on July 29, 2002, Season 8 on March 18, 2003, Season 9 on February 11, 2004, and Season 10 on November 24, 2004.


To the following, less confusing, sentence:


In Australia, the original DVD releases were fold out box sets which contained three discs, and released as follows: etc., etc. ...... Msdemos (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Add "In july month shantanu namdeo watched it." after "The sitcom's cast members returned for a reunion special aired on HBO Max on May 27, 2021." Shantanu namdeo (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-notable person. Nobody cares if you watched it or not. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: SRhum11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Racial controversies

There's a lot of sources that Friends experiencing racial issues. I was considering to put "Racial Controversies" as a section in the article.

  • David Schwimmer's Tweet (Friends vs Living Single). [1]
  • Marta Kauffman's lack of diversity. [2]

Any suggestions? Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't do it. I'm guessing that because the comment is over a year old and there isn't any of this in the article that you came to same conclusion already, but Marta Kauffman is in the news again[3] and some might attempt to reconsider the idea. It can be fun to take frivolous things and pretend to analyse them seriously, but it is a bad idea to judge a tv show from decades ago by current standards, and this encyclopedia article should not give it any more attention than it has already got. Friends owes much to Cheers and the genre of sitcoms as a whole (amongst other influences[3]). Also WP:MEDIUM is not a reliable source. It is a remarkable achievement that Friends is still relevant enough for this discussion to even happen, it is not like anyone complains about the lack of diversity in Fraiser. It is a triumph that people see Friends as too homogenous rather than a change from the usual in television. It would be inappropriate and undue to get distracted by recently invented controversies. The show that ran for ten years, it was covered in great depth and breath, and this encyclopedia article could do so much better if editors wanted to do more about the Production or the Cultural impact of the show. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Alexander, Erika (2021-04-13). "Why The Friends vs. Living Single Twitter Beef Really Matters". ZORA. Retrieved 2021-12-07.
  2. ^ "'Friends' Co-Creator Says 'I Was Part of Systemic Racism'". Observer. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  3. ^ Jim DeRogatis (Sep 3, 2000). "Screenplays spawn imitators". Chicago Sun-Times – via www.Jimdero.com. they had changed just enough of the details so that it would be not an easy lawsuit

Undue emphasis on the recent Reunion

In the lead section please replace X "The sitcom's cast members returned for a reunion special aired on HBO Max on May 27, 2021." with Y "" ie delete the text. (The text was added before the special aired[4] and rephrased after so a clean revert is unlikely to be possible. Not important but I did check.)

The reunion is only a very small part of the show and small part of this article so should not be highlighted in the WP:LEAD section. There was a whole spin-off series Joey with 48 episodes and doesn't even get mentioned in the lead, and it shouldn't, but neither should the one off reunion episode. It is WP:UNDUE to highlight a single "behind the scenes" episode in the lead (it is not even an real episode of the show). It might have seemed important because it was recent but compared to the 10 ears of the show and 236 it is hardly important at all. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Removing the line about the reunion from the intro would a conservative change to this encyclopedia article, restoring the much longer established status quo, bringing the article back to be more like the version when it was reassessed for GA status in 2018. Shouldn't editors be explaining why the reunion episode deserves so much special emphasis? Why give so much weight to a tiny amount in proportion to a show with a ten year run and hundreds of episodes? (It is not even a narrative episode, it is only a behind the scenes special.) By all means include it in the article body and with the Production section but why give it unnecessary emphasis in the lead?) How exactly am I supposed to gain consensus for this minor change? Anyone? -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

Hi there,

In the References section, the following should be removed:

  1. 178, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 190, 193, 196, 199, 202. All link to pages which no longer exist. They all redirect to the homepage. MattSmilesHN (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: We normally do not removed references from article. I have ran the article through IABot and archived the references. However, you're free to find newer reliable sources, include them here, and request it to be replace/update. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friends/Archive_4&oldid=1245697930"