Talk:Friends

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.[1] 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)

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 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)

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)

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Characters image

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)

• I agree, specially as the image in the infobox is the series logo, so the cast isn't there. An image of the actors\characters would help. igordebraga ≠ 14:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Agreed for all reasons already stated. Akcvtt (talk) 19:48, 19 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)

• Another note: the other non-free image was replaced back in 2015 with gallery of cast members. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to point out that two deletions took place. I deleted File:Friends Characters.png for violating WP:NFCC#1 on September 7, and File:Friends Characters.jpg was deleted by Fastily four days later.

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)

• @Explicit: But what's the definition of an appropriate free image and where are those "perfectly adequate" images that you're referring to? These are the pictures in the article >> File:Matthew Perry 1995 (cropped).jpg, File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg, File:Lisa Kudrow 3.jpg, File:David Schwimmer 2005 Madagascar.jpg: Half of their face and they're wearing sunglasses, hence it does not violate WP:NFLISTS even if it's not totally supported by WP:F, there's a WP:RFC here for WP:CON as they used (File:Janetrollingstonecover.jpg) a non-free magazine cover in Janet Jackson article, not for Rolling Stone despite the Wiki's policy of non-free content that says, If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover. The same thing for Joanne Gair, Caitlyn Jenner etc, and it's not Other stuff exists these are WP:FA and WP:GA as Wikipedia's superior articles which could be referred as a pattern. Bionic (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Citing those other articles is still an other stuff exists argument. The circumstances aren't even the same, so you're basically arguing, "That page has a non-free image, so this one can have one, too!" The fact that they are FAs and GAs does not change that (and ultimately a weak argument, as we've had an FA with full-on copyright violations on the Main Page). Giving those linked articles a glance, it is unlikely that most of those images would survive WP:FFD, which I plan to follow through with when I make the time.

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)

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)