Talk:Friends/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Trivia link survey

ricjl is including this external link to Amazon.co.uk. It is a commercial site with, admittedly, many quotes and trivia information. A link to (a currently poor) wikiquote has been added but ricjl keeps restoring the commercial link.

Should we include the link or refrain from linking to sites whose main aim is to sell things?

Please sign your name using hash three tildes (#~~~) under the position you support. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

Do not link to Amazon

1. violet/riga (t)
2. Neuropedia
3. JP Godfrey

Allow the link

1. ricjl

24.95.67.193

Discussion

• We shouldn't link to any sites where their primary aim is to sell things. As the wikiquote page grows it will include all the quotes and any important trivia can be assimilated here. violet/riga (t) 08:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with your second point, although that doesn't cover the trivia content, but I also sight that not linking to retail websites is not wikipedia policy. Thus why should we not? Retail websites can often have lots of useful information, that may be copyrighted. Band websites are designed to promote the band, and sell their merchandise usually. Nevertheless they include other information too. (ricjl 18:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • I think it should and will be policy not to link to commercial sites, with any relevant links being to sites that are not primarily selling things. Seeing as Amazon cannot hold the copyright for quotes on trivia on Friends then we can take a copy of them. violet/riga (t)
• Posting "Please refrain from putting the link back in until more people have shown their opinion. We can then decide whether to include the link or not." is pretty patronising and I don't appreciate it. Perhaps you should refrain from removing the link until the debate is over 80). (ricjl 18:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • I agree and apologise, as far as I could see you were not trying to discuss it and that was pretty annoying to me. I really don't think we should have the link here – I propose we figure a way of updating the wikiquote entry and assimilating trivia into these articles. violet/riga (t) 21:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Point in fact - Amazon simply use data from IMDb, who they own. If we have to link to this topic, let's just link to IMDb's pages, instead of Amazon's ... trivia, quotes -- Neuropedia 23:53, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • I didn't know that - goo find 80). That happily settles it. I just thought it would be a shame for these enjoyable quotes/trivia to be lost for a reason i couldn't understand. Close debate?(ricjl 19:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC))
    • It would be better to assimilate the information rather than having to rely on IMDb, but yeah sure - debate over. =) violet/riga (t) 20:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rob Walker wrote

Rob Walker wrote, "Friends is basically about three guys and three gals who live in suspiciously large New York apartments, humorously cope with the problems that come along with being incredibly good-looking white people, and occasionally sleep with each other." [1]

How many eps?

Does anybody know how many eps of Friends there will have been at show's end? jengod 00:10, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

If you are counting two-parters as two episodes: 238 total. (episodes per season 1-10 : 24, 24, 25, 24, 24, 25, 24, 24, 24, 20). Source: [2] . Chrysalis 06:36, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

They're only 2-parters on the DVDs hehehe. (ricjl 22:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))

And in syndication :Neuropedia 10:13, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Consider moving?

Would it make more sense to put up a disambig page for Quakers, the cam-loaded device and the TV show and move the current Friends article to Friends (TV)? Just a thought. --Abqwildcat 02:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

It would be fine that way. But it is also fine this way because neither of the other topics have articles called "Friends". I'd don't mind either way, but if you do change it, would you mind fixing all the links that currently come here expecting to find the TV programme, thanks! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a disambig page. I also think there was also a music band named Friends but I am unsure wherther a wikipedia entry exists for them.--Ingolemo 19:38, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think in this case the TV show is by far, far, the most dominant usage, so the TV show should remain here as our policy states, and particularly as it saves effort as described above. Feel free to create Friends (disambiguation) though. Pcb21| Pete 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree to the above. The Quakers and suck aren't actually called 'Friends' officially. Where does it end? There's plenty of families called McDonalds but there's one pretty overwhelming use there (ricjl 22:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Is that cricket babe?

You know, some total git just deleated the bit I spent a while doing on the entertainment unit. I don't care if you think it's over the top, you've got no right to delete it. Edit it, yes but to just delete something just because you don't want to read it is just ignorant. Whoever you are, you get go forth and fornicate with your self (Am I allowd to Swear, cuz if so, I'll change that last bit). Cheers Dick. --Crestville 22:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where do you write that? (I ask because it wasn't on this article, which has not been edited for five days). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I Didn't actually put it on the main page, but i did have it linked to Chandler Bing, Joey Tribbiani and Chandler and Joey's apartment. It was actually a seperate article. Cheers for showing an interest anyway. --Crestville 23:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok I found it. It was at The entertainment unit, and unfortunately for you there was a full deletion debate that I've copied here:

Not encyclopedic. I can't imagine anyone searching for this term. Seems similar to the "hamburger earmuffs" (Simpsons reference) that was deleted a while back. Joyous 21:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I asked the user about it earlier, but got a response something akin to "it's not hurting anything". It isn't even linked to in the Friends article itself. Delete and try to make mentions of it in either Chandler Bing or Joey Tribbiani. Mike H 21:48, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Put it back in Chandler and Joey's apartment where it belongs. Also add to List of furniture featured in sit-coms. 'scuse me while I get back to writing my sofa's life story. Ianb 21:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Haha funny...on TV...had to be there. Too minor a feature of a TV show, unsearchable term. Geogre 00:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete fan trivia. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:32, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Beyond the limit. Delete and also delete the apartment articles. Any useful information can go under the character articles. MK 21:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow. you fellers really do suck. I mean, who's it hurting? If yer don't like it, for Gods sake, just don't read it. That's pretty damn ignorant. Fan Trivia my arse. It were just a harmless piece of fun. This isn't even a real encyclopedia! If this is the policy, why not get started on the Simpsons page? Or the Beatles? I mean, who the hell is going to search for Mal Evans? or My Two Cents? . I can't imagine too many pewople searching for Ferdinand de Lessops either, but it seems reasonable that he should be on. Maybe if you actually contributed something of substance (I've checked, for the most part, you haven't) then you'd realise that this whole encyclopedia thing cannot be harmed by little bits of useless trivia, connected to more important matter. I'm not going to bother appealing for it to be un-deleated, no point with such boring tight arses around. God, if you'd just told me I would gladly have removed it, edited it and put it elsewhere, but, again, ignorance. Go Fuck yourself. --Crestville 00:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So it looks like you only knew about the deletion debate after deletion occured. That is a real shame because it understandably pissed you off. My suggestions would be

1. Don't get too hung up about the Votes for Deletion page; the standard of debate can be quite low.
2. Re-insert the material on other pages if you think it should be in a general encyclopedia (let me know if you need a copy of the deleted material; as an administrator I have access to it)
3. Swear less. Although swearing isn't banned on talk pages it often gets people's backs up and they end up trying to work against you rather than with you.

Hope that helps a bit, Pcb21| Pete 09:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Friends v Seinfeld

Don't want to be a killjoy here, but isn't this just asking to have dozens of sections "Friends v My Favourite Sitcom"? Plus I'm not entirely sure why we would be comparing a show aimed at a boomer audience about a group of four downbeat, depressed guys who spend all their time complaining about how they never get to have sex with a show about six unbearablly perky, upbeat guys who spend all their time having sex. DJ Clayworth 14:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also don't like the fact that we're asking contributors to add POV instead of quoting television historians and columnists, who are marginally more informed in this area. Mike H 14:32, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Just reverted to previous good version - it's blatantly POV and doesn't really add anything. Example is that they state that Friends is similar to Seinfeld because of the episode naming - not exactly a great comparison tbh. violet/riga 14:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About "Friends vs My Favorite Sitcom" - Friends and Seinfeld are considered two major classics of the 90's, and suspiciously resemble each other, so i thought a comparison was in order. It was somewhat POV because I personally think Seinfeld is better..

That's just it, though. You're not allowed to say anything is better than anything. Telling facts is what is important, and not personal opinions you may have. Mike H 14:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well that's why I put in the 'Pro-Friends' section, to show all sides of the debate, although i hade nothing to contribute there myself. Also, Violetriga, maybe you should go through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again, especially on the section of Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Somos

I didn't remove it simply for being POV, I really don't see how the article benefits, nor do I think that the comparisons are legitimate. Coincidences happen and the character of Pheobe, as you mention, could be inspired by a variety of sources or none at all - we can't say either way. As mentioned above we don't want "Friends v Simpsons" or "Friends v Blah". violet/riga 15:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support it being deleted. Unless the directors, writers, or critics at that time had made the connection its irrelivant. This is an encyclopaedia not a debate club. Go post it on a forum. (ricjl 21:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Broadcaster changes

Ricjl, please please please stop changing the broadcasters section - I've been watching this show since it first started, I've tracked the UK network changes as time has gone on, there's no need to describe a channel as a satellite or digital channel when there are links to the wiki entries for those channels so readers can find out more, so please don't change that section unless you have new information to add, please?

Oh, and E4 is not a "digital only channel" (it's available on analogue cable too), and Sky One isn't a "satellite channel", as it's available on analogue / digital cable too. Neuropedia 00:56, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Fair enough, you do seem to care a whole lot. I dunno what a caveat is though 8/. (ricjl 01:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC))

It's nothing to do with caring, it's to do with putting up factual information. I live in the UK, and have watched Friends since it was first aired here, so I feel ably qualified to put up UK broadcaster information. Also, if you don't know what caveat means, may I respectfully suggest that you look it up? Neuropedia 23:57, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Also known as

What 'cha all think of the Also known as section? I don't think it is all that interesting or useful. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:26, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Might as well leave it for the time being. Not like the page is running out of room or anything. It may be of interest to others, though I myself couldn't care less.--Crestville 19:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Finale

The latest edit to the article completely spoils the series finale. I am not sure whether a spoiler this big should be included even with a spoilertag...does it really offer useful information? Do you think it should remain or be removed? Sinistro 23:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The ending of films and books are appropriate to those articles and so too is this. I think it could be done in a better way and should use the {{spoiler}} template, but I do think it's relevant. violet/riga (t) 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Crane

I suppose I could put this on the David Crane page, but I'm pretty sure more people will see it here.

Is the David Crane who co-created Friends the same David Crane from Activision? If not, I'd say we either need to change the David Crane link to "David Crane (Friends)" or "David Crane (Writer)", or else we need to put a note on the David Crane page to differentiate between the two. Dpark 19:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joanna

The synopsis should mention how Rachel was going to get Joanna's job, but she was hit by a car and no proof existed that she was going to get said job. I can't remember what season that was in, though. Was it Season 3 or Season 4? Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was in episode 4.09 (TOW They're Going to Party), but I don't think it's worth mentioning. --Aramգուտանգ 03:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is Friends set?

Isn't Friends supposed to be set in Greenwich Village? This page has no mention of it.

Trivia: 55 people paid to watch

Trivia quote: "55 people we're paid to come to the studio and watch the first four episodes of "The Six of Us"; this show's title was changed to "Friends"". Was that as a result ofthe 55 people watching? (;-) Dieter Simon 23:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Season 8 Censorship in Malaysia.

NTV7 & TV3 have been broadcasting Friends since Season 5. After broadcasting for 3 years, the Malaysian Censorship board ordered that the show be banned. Apparently, the Censorship guys weren't happy about Ross and Rachel having a baby out of wedlock and that it was "not in line with the nation's interest". Liberal groups protested the ban saying it was only a show. The show was then allowed to be broadcasted but was tagged 18SX by the censorship guys. Go figure how that one got applied to Friends. -Changed-

more for trivia

The article should also include (or have a dedicated section/link for) the other movies the Friends stars did along with guest stars. I know the following movies were done by Friends stars with other guest stars:

1.The Whole Nine Yards and The Whole Ten Yards (Matthew Perry and Bruce Willis); 2. Scream 3 (Courtney Cox and David Arquette); 3. The Object of My Affection (Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd)

Can you think of anything more?

Friends trivia link

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/video/B00004CUDC/quotes/202-1841930-0682203

Though there are some excellent quotes on the linked page should we really be linking directly to a shop? Not sure what the policy on that is. violet/riga 00:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That link also seems to include an Amazon Associates affiliate username (the /quotes/ bit), so someone could be making money off that link :) :Neuropedia 00:58, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Removed it. violet/riga (t) 01:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is your problem!! No I did not make any money off that link, I don't even know how I could, and secondly, when was there ever a policy about not linking to commercial sites?? What about official movie, band, and TV show websites? I've reverted it back. (ricjl 01:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC))

The primary aim of that site is to sell things – it shouldn't be here even though the information is useful. If you feel so strongly about including such information then perhaps you should improve http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friends – I've linked to that instead. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GA/FA Status To-do List

• An article needs to be well sourced outwith wikipedia as well as within. Despite time consuming, I reccommend making articles on the following (unarticled) subjects:
  • Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions
  • Judy Geller
  • Mike Hannigan
  • All the episodes that are mentioned in the article The One With The Fertility Test, The One with the List, etc.

• Intro
  • Tidy up intro
  • Note first and last episode
  • Make sure it isn't completely focused on the US (Friends is worlwide)
  • Expand

• Overview
  • Move the plot stuff to the top, just my opinion.. it's more interesting..
  • Add an end spoiler tag after you've done
  • We need to cite all those figures
  • Move the stuff about the commercials etc to the "Ratings section"

• Cast members
  • Images (I'll cover all of them at the end)
  • Why is there a picture there? *is shocked* AND WHY ARE THERE BRACKETS? :P
  • I would personally kill those tables, their small and ugly..
  • Merge with Guestars section
  • Phoebe's name is Hannigan!
  • Ugly Naked Guy appeared in one episode.. he must have been mentioned..

• Running Gags
  • Move this to beneath synopsis
  • "his father is gay" - his father was the Arnold Schwartzanegger of gays :P
  • I may just rewrite this when I get the time.. or just cut stuff straight from the main article

• Cultural Legacy & Spinoffs
  • Merge both of these with "Possible return to television" and name it "Legacies" and a sub-header being "Cultural Legacy"
  • Clean up Cultural
  • Move whole thing right underneath Running Gags (I'll do a plan for the article later)

• Synopsises
  • I think the plural is "synopsi" but don't trust me on that.
  • Minor cleanup, might make more of a note to more eps

• Ratings
  • Merge with whatever is left..

• Guest Stars
  • Merge/Delete.. I really don't know..

• Possible return to television
  • I know most of this is rumours ( read the talk page)
  • Merge with above

• Trivia
  • The deleting fairy is coming...
  • Remove non-notable/useless garb (who got their addresses :o)

• Trivia Game
  • .. Trivial
  • Merge with trivia probs

• References
  • Make some...
  • Introduce you to a friend.. WP:CITE

• External Links
  • Add
  • Fix
  • Delete spanish link...

• Images
  • Friends.PNG
    • Fair Use Rationale (FUR)
    • Source (I'll get that)

• • TV The One After Ross Says Rachel.jpg
    • Has a review tag on it with no review....
    • Needs FUR

• • Phoebe Buffay 1.jpg
    • Source (proper source)
    • Needs FUR

I'll cross out everything that's been done (if you do do something please turn it back to normal by removing <font color="#CF5440"> from the front of it it. Headers should be turned back to normal when all notes have been fixed/proven/contested. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is Central Perk?

Isn't Central Perk under the apartments? --Spikey 23:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No is the short answer. The long answer is that we're not told, but I doubt it. Joey once noted it was "fewer than 100 steps from his apartment." That kinda suggests it's down the road. Also I always assumed Central Perk was in view of 'Central Park', which doesn't quite add up since they live in the Village. <<I can't believe how much thought I put into that>>. (ricjl 22:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I think that it IS in the same block of apartments. I only twigged on this a few years into the series. I'm sure at some points characters refer to meeting them downstairs then the next scene is in the coffee house. Also, I remember a scene when they are in Central Perk and they say 'see you upstairs' or 'he's upstairs still', something along that vain. That would suggest that it is indeed in the same building. Can anyone confirm this?

CONFIRMED!

The Central Perk is definitely downstairs. I'm watching "Ross Meets Elizabeth's Dad" (episode # 6.21 from 27 April 2000 -- see imdb for Bruce Willis). Rachel is helping Bruce "Mr. Stevens" find his keys, and later explains the event as "I was helping him find his keys downstairs". Moth6666 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

hi everybody, mind if i but in? i'm a friends freak so i hope you don't mind if i tell you that it IS infact downstairs, whoever wrote the first paragraph "no is the short answer" is an idiot. I hav an unbelievable amount of proof for my reason, but here's just a couple. when Joey's boat "the Mr. Bowmont" gets delievered to this apartment it STOPS outside the coffee house, this means his apartment must be right above it. YES joey DOES say it's 100 paces to the coffee house, but this is from the apartment door, NOT from the apartment complex, AND of course like people hav said numerous times throughout the series the characters refer to it as "downstairs" when they are in their apartments. Sorry if i sounded a bit abusive :D

Well if it means anything, in the "One where Rachel Turns 30" (or whatever), when Phoebe leaves the coffe house and Joey follows her, he crosses the road. After he runs out Monica says "He's gonna eat the cake." He's actually following Phoebe who walks off... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Legacy

I like the "Cultural Legacy" section, pointing out the use of "so". There are more phrases it brought about too ("How you doin'?" and "Oh... My... God" for example) and perhaps they should be added. However, I don't really think it's necessary to say how it can be compared with Sex and the City in this regard - they're not the only series to have an impact of spoken language. Perhaps that bit should be removed? violet/riga 22:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not to start a flame war, but I'm not a fan of Friends. And in a lot of comedy, the show is regularly parodied as a show that was liked by a lot of people, but simply "stupid comedy" like Gilligan's Island (I won't knock this genre-I like Gilligan's Island). This attitude is expressed most notably by shows such as the Daily Show. So I think that this definitely should be part of the "Cultural Legacy," as it seems to be more of how Friends is remembered by everyone except fans (Who, in reality, are a minority of the people who heard about the show and have memories of it...). Just a thought. Jmw0000 06:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Can we please add a section which details what an abomination of popular cultrue this show really was? -Nambio 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very POV! Mike H. That's hot 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two sides. One is that, yes, I bet even the show itself knew that the world it depicted was too cute, touchy-feely, and fun to be considered realistic. Note the credits scene in the beginning of the episode where the characters are playing around in a fountain. Matthew Perry himself parodied this unrealistic scenario during a perforamance on Saturday Night Live (does anyone have this link?). I think comedic venues like the Daily Show and other late night comedy shows made fun of Friends in this way. I'm not sure "stupid" works well as a description of the show, though. And there is definitely a cultural legacy. After Seinfeld ended, the next 'heavyweight' sitcom, in terms of viewership, was Friends, no question about it. And Seinfeld was a different generation from Friends - in other words, Friends represented a younger sort of generation than the great sitcom that preceded it. I'm not knowledgable enough in the sociological or popular terms to describe these generational differences, but just to take some stabs at it - the characters in Friends represent an out-of college atmosphere, and even expressions of metrosexuality (in regard to Ross and Chandler), that are not found in most other massively popular sitcoms. A final note is that after Friends ended, many speculated about the end of the age of sitcoms on television. Indeed, there are/were still some popular ones like Frasier and Will and Grace, but not one as dominant as Seinfeld, Friends, and past famous sitcoms were. This also caused NBC to lose its dominance over ratings after Friends went off the air, etc. It would be cool to see these issues explored in the article. Kenumay 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I mean, I'm not going to knock the quality of the show, as its not my thing, though I'd definitely put it in the genre of "Dumb"-I like "Dumb"-such as Giligan's Island. I didn't like this show, and that's my business. Yet, at the same time, there's no reason there shouldn't be honest cultural legacy about this show that's not all positive. No one is going to dispute that people-a lot of people-liked this show, and no one is going to be condescending about them-or no one should be condescending about them. There is enough reference to it that's very common criticizing this show as a pinnacle of western civilization-I would guess that Friends is symbolic to some as "Overhyped"-I think that's the point I'm trying to make. It is what it is, and a lot of people like it. But there is a lot of hype surrounding it, and this article proves in many respects there is hype surrounding it. Anything as big as Friends, no matter how good or bad is going to have critics-a lot of them-and its going to have some memory as the whole public views the show. I say on this Friends has not been fairly viewed and a majority of the mainstream holds the subject with contempt unlike some shows-like Seinfeld in particular-which have been given a very generous reputation and Friends has culturally suffered by comparison. This I believe is fact. But I'm not willing to edit it because my opinions are biased towards it, someone might disagree strongly. But I would challange anyone to cite to me how many people in the mainstream today publically give Friends the respect it deserves-instead of the disrespect it gets. You won't find them. And that is the cultural legacy of the show as a whole.J. M. 03:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also annoying that nothing is mentioned on the main page in the cultural section about the virtual lack of ethnic minorities for a show that supposedly took place in and around Greenwich Village.

Reruns

Reruns/syndication

• ABC (United States)

THis is incorrect. The show isn't syndicated on ABC. Syndication involes local broadcast affiliates. Here it runs on FOX and this will vary throughout the country. --Sketchee 02:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page also says it;s syndicated on Nick At Night, this is the first I've heard of this, is this accurate? Deathawk 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. Mike H. That's hot 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Running Gags

I have real problems with the running gags section. People apparently confuse this with themes etc. as a running gags has to be mentioned by a character surely to be a gag at all. That is why i have removed several of the sections. Hope thats ok. --Gfad1 16:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that the "changing hairstyle"-subsection under "Running Gags" has been undeleted. If it's a running gag to change the hairstyle of the characters in a show that lasted 10 years, then a lot of shows have this kind of humour. Just because one minor character mentions the hair of another character one time, doesn't make it a running gag. --Maitch 17:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree and anyone that starts undeleting could at least post an explanation here. I also have qualms with putting Mr Heckles in this section as he only appears in a few episodes, hardly throughout the history of the show. What do you guys think? --Gfad1 19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the hair thing is more of a cultural legacy than a running gag, I've no intention of undeleting it again as long as it's mentioned in the cultural legacy paragraph. However, Mr. Heckles should probably stay. Even though they killed him off quite early, when he was still there, he was a notable running gag, as much as the ugly naked guy, who also didn't make it through the whole series, and "we were on a break", which wasn't prominent at all for a large part of the show. Yet all three are running gags of a similar level of notoriety, and should stay put in my opinion. --Aramգուտանգ 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the qualifier for a running gag is that (1) it's actually used as an in-joke without much explanation other than the reference -- the most obvious example here would be Ross and Rachel's "we were on a break" gag, which I remember confused me when I came across it during episodic reruns before I'd watched The One With The Morning After, but it was clearly invoked to elicit knowing laughs, and (2) it has to span across two seasons or more. --Ahsirakh 11:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ross' "secret hand-sign" with the two fists knocked together should probably be added as a running gag, too, since it's used pretty much assuming prior knowledge of what it means. --Ahsirakh 15:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a running gag claimed in the article at the moment about Ross' Plaeontology, stating: Ross' paleontology: Ross had a habit of speaking in (un)scientific technobabble, and often showing off unsolicited and often poor knowledge of various subjects, most notably paleontology. One particularly good example of this was the statement, "Australopithecus was never fully erect." (The joke here is that any grade-school student knows that Australopithecus did have fully-erect posture.) This was on one level a great 'double entendre', but was also a somewhat high-brow gag, which many viewers weren't necessarily able to recognize as humorous outside of it painting Ross as a "nerd." I can't see any justification that this is a running gag, or even that this was the intention of the writers. I'm not quite sure whether the author of this text is being sarcastic when he says that any grade-school student knows that Australopithecus had a fully erect posture, but I don't think it's true (that a grade-school student would know this). I think that this moment illustrated a lack of research on the part of the writers, rather than an attempt to portray Ross' character as lacking in knowledge. If no one has an objection, I'll remove this bit. --Victim Of Fate

No objection here. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused by the claim that Chandler's obsession with pornography and Joey's obsession with lesbians are running gags. In the case of the latter, the article also concedes that the other two male characters share this obsession. It elicits the question: where do character quirks end and running gags begin? Janice's catchphrase is clearly a running gag. "We were on a break" is, and so is Fat Monica and Street Phoebe. But the male characters being into porn and being aroused by the idea of lesbians? You might as well add in Rachel's love of shopping! How about Pheobe being a little spaced out? Or Chandler being sarcastic? This whole section's value is being diluted by people adding in things that aren't running gags.--Victim Of Fate 10:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Potential Additions to Running gags

I didn't want to add any thing directly (since this is quite an active discussion page figured best to start here), but wondered whether any of the below running-gags might be added to the list on the main page. If people are happy enough then maybe they could be added/rewritten more appropriately:

• Ross being the parent's favourite - Not so much a joke among the main characters but many scenes over the course of the show depicted Ross being clearly favoured by (at least) his mother.

• Nobody know what Chandler's job is - It was very common in the first few series for nobody to actually know what Chandler did for a living, culminating in (incidently one of my favourite episodes) 'The one with the Quiz'.

• Phoebe being a little 'kinky' - References were made on many occassions to Phoebe being somewhat kinkier than the friends. One thinks of the gag about Mike being 'locked up', or the discovery of the handcuffs (which Phoebe claims are 'too poor quality').

I don't know whether these count as running-gags or just long-term plot lines, but figured there is no harm in added the thoughts to the comments page!

ny156uk 13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long.

And I think the main problem is the 'season synopsis', which is far too wordy and needs to be severely chopped or edited. Perhaps that section could be moved into a new article or articles, to make this main one more accessible? Thenugga 22:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Too long for what? 213.163.7.195 14:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size - " a) technical issues, and b) considerations of readability and organization.". The article is 45kb; Wikipedia recommends a maximum of 32kb. Thenugga 18:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the maximum size is only a reccomendation, not a rule. The main concern here is disruption of the information flow. It's OK to have a long section that most readers probably won't read, but provides insight for those looking for more specific information, as long as it's near the end of an article. In this case, that section would be the plot synopsis, and the problem might be solved by moving the "cultural legacy" and "spinoff" sections to go before it. Splitting the section into a separate article would probably be OK too, although there is some likelyhood that someone will put it on VfD. P.S. I just brought it down to 44 KB by converting the tables to wikitable syntax ☺ --Aramգուտանգ 22:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the article is too long. But what I, as a reader, find even more disappointing is that it's also not that interesting. Most of the running gags are actually inside jokes, and who wants jokes explained? I don't know who will ever read the season synopsis. Those who don't know the show will like the overview better. Those who like the show will rather watch it than read about it. Is it for people who missed some, uh, seasons, and want to catch up? Maybe.

There are some interesting tidbits in the trivia section, but they should be presented as background information in a wider context. I understand that Friends was one of the most successful American sitcoms right out of the gate. The article says so, but trust me, that is not self-explanatory outside the US. Why was that? What drew the audience to those characters? How did the show hit a nerve? Didn't it cause some kind of controversy when they addressed sensitive subjects, such as homosexuality. I remember they mentioned "multiple orgasms" and a lot of sexual innuendo in the first season. I imagine that wasn't your average prime-time TV in 1994, or was it? I wouldn't know, I'm not American, but that's the stuff I, for one, turn to Wikipedia to learn about. Also, how did they handle the 9-11 attacks on the show? I think they completely ignored them, but: How was the reception of that? After all Friends was the number-one sitcom at the time, so this would be noteworthy. And, more generally, how did critics like the show, what about awards?
What I do find interesting (to single out but one) is the section about its cultural impact (which is why I moved it up a bit, as Aram suggested), but I think it could be extended a little by someone who knows. My two cents... Jondor. (15:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

I agree also. Plenty of this could be moved to separate pages. As it is currently, the series synopsis affects the page's readability. Essexmutant 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Move "Season synopsis", "DVD Releases", "Friends in other countries" and "Broadcasters" to seperate articles. Please cut down on all the pointless fan trivia. --Maitch 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is 66kb long, more than twice that recomended length. I think moving the season synopsis to another page would disrupt the flow of information, so how about we cut back on some of the detailed information in there. I think we can get rid of the "Relations" and "Other" sections in Cast Members since all of those characters are addressed in their own article. The pre-broadcast audience research can be summed up in one or two sentences and be moved tothe Trivia section. Running gags is long enough to have its own article. Loose ends needs to go. That section is useless. Trivis needs to be shortened. Most of it isn't even notable. Rumors need to go unless someone can cite a source for them. DVD releases could be given its own article if more info on the DVDs were provided. Right now it's just a list, and I don't think that alone can justify its own article. Jtrost 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'd like to go ahead and start implementing some of the changes discussed here. Jtrost 23:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. We can always see how it looks afterwards. The problem I have with the season synopsis is quite simply that I find the section to long. It goes into more detail than I would prefer. If somebody wrote a shorter summary of the seasons and linked to the current text as "see main article" it would be better. --Maitch 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, that was pretty much what I thought needs to go. Like Maitch also said, feel free to go ahead. JYolkowski // talk 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

The ratings section claims that the audience for the series finale was lower than that of TOW After The Superbowl, but the numbers given don't seem to correspond to this. Can anyone explain?--Victim Of Fate 11:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, that is weird. I didn't notice that when I just edited the section. However, I googled a site called Friends Ratings according to which the finale had only 52.5 million viewers. The site looks quite trustworthy to me, so I'd suggest to rely on the data given there. I don't think Nielsen grants public access to their ratings archive, or do they? – Jondor 13:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would assume Nielsen numbers aren't available to the public as PR firms have to pay in order to see them. Perhaps after a certain point or for big events (such as the Friends finale or other TV finales) these are made public, but in general I don't believe they are. Pnkrockr 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening Photo

The photo at the top in the infobox is up for deletion because it doesn't have a copyright source. So, can anyone provide evidence that it's really been released as part of a press kit? Or else, does anyone know where we could find an image which we can use? It needs to look professional, and feature the cast. We can't just grab another random image, or it'll suffer the same fate. But, I hate to just not have an image there. It adds quite a bit to the article. -- Dpark 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously a promotional photo released by NBC. Edit the copyright info on the picture to reflect that. Jtrost 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to be able to cite it. "I found this photo on some site, and I'm sure it's a promo photo" doesn't count. Not all promo photos are fair use. They have to be released as part of a press kit. e.g. Photos used by NBC on their own web site don't count as fair use promo photos. -- Dpark 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the photo up, and i forgot to do the copywrite info. But the photo is from the front of the book "Friends... 'til the End: The One with All Ten Years". -- Ian42 20:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Laugh Track

Not all episodes were filmed in front of a studio audience. Most episodes were filmed with a laugh track, like the episode of Ursula and Phoebe together.

Is that true, that most episodes were filmed with a laugh track? -- Dpark 16:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a) a misunderstanding and b) not even specific to Friends anyway (it's actually true of 90% of primetime sitcoms) and should be deleted.

FEI: The studio audience is recorded to give the editors an idea of where to *place* a laugh track or augment the one they've recorded. The idea of having a studio audience is two-fold: Firstly, leaving an editor to place a laugh track on his/her own ends up with the "fake sounding" stuff they used on M*A*S*H and The Flintstones. By recording an audience's reaction, an editor has a much better idea of when and how strong an audience's reaction was, which makes it sound much more natural. Secondly it's also good for the cast, directors and writers. For the cast it gives them an idea of what the beat of the joke is and for writers/directors it gives them a chance to "polish" a joke that falls flat with the audience or doesn't feel like it's working.

Scenes with special effects or that were shot on location are usually shown to a studio audience via the monitors, and their laughs, again, are recorded as usual to help with the editing (although, obviously it doesn't help the cast or directors!).

So like I said, this is a piece of quasi trivia that's not specific to Friends and should be removed altogether (IMO).

- Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 23:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of justifications to use a laugh track but that´s hardly the point. The fact is that the show uses one and there´s no point in hiding it. True this is not specific to Friends but it is a major technical characteristic which should be noted. Of course laugh tracks are considered by many (as myself) a cheap trick and that´s why fans of the show would like to hide it but this is not a fan page.

Cleanup

Here is a summary of the cleanup I did on this article. Regarding the size of the article, it started out at 66kb, and now is 36kb, which is still larger than recomended, but we still have the season synopsis section. Note that all new pages that I created were added to the template.

• Added a request for sources at the top of the page. Particularly we need citations the first and last paragraphs in Overview, about every item in Trivia, and the info in Ratings.
• Deleted Relations, Other, and Guest Stars from Characters because all of that info is covered in their respective pages.
• Deleted Pre-broadcast audience research because it's not very encyclopedic. If someone really wants it in there, sum it up in one sentence and add it to the trivia.
• Created page for a full list of Running Gags, and left a few of the most popular ones in this article.
• Better worded items in Trivia and deleted some fancruft trivia.
• Moved Awards and Nominations to its own article.
• Moved DVD Releases to its own article.
• Deleted Friends in Other Countires. This section looked like it was simply the word "friends" translated into dozens of different languages That's not encyclopedic.
• Moved broadcasters to its own article.
• Deleted See also because those links are in the template.

I did nothing with the Season synopsis section because I don't think we've reached a consensus on what to do with it. I'm open to any suggestions others may have. If you don't agree with some of the decisions I made concerning this article please bring it up here so we can talk about it. Jtrost 04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. I think the season summary should stay; I think it's analogous to a "history" section in an article about a factual topic. It could maybe be a bit shorter though. JYolkowski // talk 02:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job. I moved the trivia down to the bottom. I would really wish if we could use some of the trivia in other section. Anyway the problem now is that with all the clutter away, it is really obvious how little interesting information this article offers. I've added a to do list, so we can make this article better. --Maitch 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the season synopsis section. I limited each season to two paragraphs that touched on the major plot points. I figure that if people want to add detail, they can add it to the episode guides. Jtrost 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the characters kissed each other in the ten seasons, albeit in dream sequences etc.

"Possible return to television". This section is way too speculative, too incoherently written, and probably doesn't even belong in wikipedia untill something more definitive is said about it. At the very least it should be trimmed down - The DJ 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely removed kissing trivia as it ceased to hold any factual weight ages ago, let alone if it actually made any sense. If this is really necessary please could someone make a version of it that is completely accurate and at least doesn't try to state that characters who are supposed to be brother and sister shared a passionate kiss. Peteb16 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but in "The One Where The Stripper Cries" don't you learn that Monica's first kiss was actually Ross, when Ross thought it was Rachel in the bedroom upstairs at college? Mnbf9rca 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Monica has kissed Rachel (to win the flat), Chandler (they are married), and Ross (by mistake in The One Where The Stripper Cries). Phoebe has kissed Rachel (when Rachel was proving that she's not a prude and has the date with the girl she kissed in college), Joey (When Phoebe was complaining that she has never had the perfect kiss), Chandler (When Chandler was covering up his kiss with Monica after they returned from London), and Ross (???). Ross has kissed Phoebe (???), Monica (as above), Rachel (they were in a relationship), Chandler (???), and Joey (When Joey was preparing for a part which involved kissing a guy). Chandler has kissed Ross (???), Phoebe (as above), Monica (they are married), Rachel (also when covering up his kiss with Rachel), and Joey (???). Joey has kissed Rachel (they date a couple of times), Phoebe (as above), Ross (as above), and Chandler (???).

I'm not sure if this is worthy of inclusing, but here's my best shot, from recollection:

Ross has kissed: Rachel (onscreen in their relationship), Phoebe (onscreen in The One with the Flashback), Monica (offscreen, revealed in The One Where the Stripper Cries), Joey (onscreen in the closing credits of The One with Barry and Mindy's Wedding - Joey wanted to practice kissing guys for an audition) and Chandler (offscreen during The One Where Chandler Can't Remember Which Sister - Chandler admits to snogging friends when drunk and Monica, Rachel and Ross all forgive him).

Chandler: Ross (as above), Monica (onscreen in their relationship), Rachel (onscreen when they return from London), Phoebe (onscreen, ditto). I can't clearly recall him snogging Joey - in The One with Barry and Mindy's Wedding he was quite resistant - but isn't there a shot in one of the title sequences where they do?

Joey: Ross (as above), Phoebe (onscreen in The One Where They All Turn Thirty), Rachel (onscreen in their relationship). Not sure about Chandler and I've no recollection of his kissing Monica.

Rachel: Ross (as above), Chandler (as above), Joey (as above), Monica (offscreen to get the apartment back), Phoebe (onscreen - she wanted to see what all the fuss was about over Rachel's once kissing a girl).

Monica: Ross (as above - it was her first kiss though she didn't learn it was her brother for many years!), Chandler (as above), Rachel (as above). I can't recall her kissing either Joey or Phoebe.

Phoebe - Ross, Chandler, Joey, Rachel (as above).

So that leaves the unknown combinations as: Chandler-Joey, Joey-Monica, Monica-Phoebe. Unless any of those three occurred, Rachel and Ross are the only characters to have snogged all the others. Timrollpickering 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And according to Chandler Bing#Trivia he and Joey kissed in The One with the Monkey. Timrollpickering 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted

From the Hey Amir...

Copyvio!

The entire section on the court case is lifted word-for-word from an AP article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/tv.friendslawsuit.ap/index.html). I've removed it, although it ought to be rewritten soon. -Elmer Clark 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Over or By Coffee shop

Do they live over or by the coffee shop. Because someone just changed it, and I wasn't positive, but I always thought it was downstairs. Can someone else tell me if it is downstairs or not? You should change it back if it is... Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In one episode Joey mentions they live within something like 100 paces of the coffee shop (Chandler says he has waaay too much free time). the coffee shop is never shown connected to the building they live in (in the stock apartment/coffee shop filming) so I would suggest that the Coffee shop is very close but not part of the same building. ny156uk 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors and Inconsistances

Frank Jnr and the Condom Guy

The following is listed in the errors and inconsistencies:

*In season 2, when Phoebe loses her job as the singer for Central Perk, she resumes singing outside the central perk only to get 3 quaters and a condom. The person who comes to collect the condom back is the person who plays Phoebe's brother in later episodes, who apparently has not been to New York at all!

I challanged this statement once and removed it, however it has since been put back. So I thought it best to open it to discussion to avoid any further conflict. My view is that it's not an error as Frank Jnr and the guy who asks for his condom back are not supposed to be the same character although they are of course played by the same actor who plays the character in a similar way. Many shows have had the same actor appear as at least two different characters at different parts of the series so I don't see how this qualifies as an error or an inconsistancy. Pete 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Personally. Not a slip up. otocan

I've removed it again along with a reference to the actress who played Estelle having an Season 1 bit part as a nurse. If anyone believes they should be added again, please discuss it here first. Thanks ~~ Pete 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "In the episode "Example" you cans see a shadow of the camera" should be the kind of inconsistancy listed there.... Does anyone agree with me? Because this section really needs to be cleaned up then! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Errors with the Errors

I've removed the following two errors which can easily be challanged as not being errors.

* In The One With George Stephanopoulos, Ross says that the first time he had sex with Carol was his first time with a woman, ever. But in later eposodes it is said that he had sex with 'an eighty year old libarian' and 'the woman who cleaned our dorm'.

* In The One With the Blackout, New York City suffers a power cut and Chandler is trapped in an ATM vestibule with a model. But dispite the blackout he is able to use a mobil phone which shouldn't work because the Base station would also also be affected by the power cut.

The concept of those two embarassing stories being revealed was done for shock and humour value. It wouldn't have had the same effect if Ross had previously been heard boasting that he slept with either an eighty year old librarian and the woman that cleaned his dorm instead of it being his first wife. It'd also be rather out-of-character for Ross.

As for the mobile phone being cut off due to a power cut, most mobile phone base stations are likely to have some form of back up power (like the lights in the ATM vestibule).

• Ok, mabe your right about the base station power backup. The one about Ross though, your explanation doesn't explane why Ross was so upset all through the hocky match. Also, Chandler knew about the woman who cleaned their dorm in the later eposode because Ross and him whent to collage together. So why doesn't he know when Ross says Carol was his first time with a woman in The One With George Stephanopoulos? Laurenceandrews 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A good point, however this isn't the point made in the paragraph above. Ross could still hide the fact that he had any sort of relationship with the librarian as this was a rumour only confirmed by Ross in that later episode. Ross' upset in that episode was mainly about his breakup with Carole so that's not valid. So if the error goes back in the article it should only mention the conversation between Chandler, Ross and Joey in the hospital pointing out Chandler should've known as it was later contradicted when Chandler brought up the subject of the lady who cleaned their dorm (the episode this is mentioned in needs to be cited for proof). ~~ Peteb16 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, Ross only kissed the librarian. 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I pointed out the error that Max said he and David were going to Minsk to study, saying that it was in Russia. It is however in Belarus and this is a recurring error as he claims he has returned from Russia in latter episodes. Any reason why this was removed?

People tend to remove content without reason, either because of vandalism or because something was added when there is already a discussion or warning against adding said content. In this case, there is a notice at the top of the list stating the Trivia section is too large and another notice suggesting Errors and Inconsistencies should be split into another article. Therefore it would be wise not to add anything further to this section whether it's valid or not. If the section split is approved and actioned you could then contribute the information to the new article. May I also advise you sign your comments using four of these '~'. Thanks ~~ Peteb16 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Peteb16 - I shall keep an eye to see if the split is approved and add it then (I'm completely new to all this so your advice is appreciated) 80.43.85.107 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)(Jimide)

I'm new to this so I'm just going to let you know what I've done and why (and please do let me know if there is more of a protocol to this). I removed the following "error":

"Throughout the entire series, the apartment building shown (the one in which Monica and Joey's apartments are located) does not match the apartments' structures at all. A clear example of this is the fact that Monica's apartment has an external balcony and a large window, two things that are clearly not present in the apartment building shown every time a scene in their apartments started."

I removed this "error" firstly because there is no clear indication that the apartment building shown is in fact Monica and Joey's particular apartment building (this could be simply an artistic introduction to set the scene). Secondly, assuming that the apartment building shown is in fact intended to contain Monica and Joey's apartments, the balcony and large window in Monica's apartment could be on the other side of the apartment building that is shown - the side that isn't visually accessible. Basically I don't think this is an obvious error.

I also added to the error regarding the number of times that Rachel and Chandler meet each other. In "The One That Could Have Been", Rachel can't even remember Ross's name (who although in this episode, it is assumed that they haven't ever had a close relationship, he still is the brother of her best friend from high school and he tried to kiss her once apparently "to get Chap-stick" - I think that's mentioned on "The One With The Routine"). So I think it's reasonable to assume that Rachel is just self-centred (at least early on) and doesn't remember Chandler and Chandler is just too shy to mention it. Mandibla

I think both of these errors are amongst the few that are worthy of note. The convention is for an exterior shot to be of the outside of the interior, rather than some artistic suggestion. As for the possibility that it could be from the other side, there are a number of references throughout the series to the balcony overlooking the road, whilst we see that outside Joey's window is an alley way and another apartment.

I had forgotten about that alley outside Joey's apartment...good point. However, in all these errors I think one should take into account artistic licence: don't the creators of the show have the authority to fudge a few minor issues that aren't central to the plot if it means the audience will get better entertainment? Mandibla

As for Rachel and Chandler first meeting three times I think it is speculation to try to explain this one as not being an error. There may be an explanation (although it's quite clear from The One where the stripper cries that Chandler has always known who she is so why doesn't he mention it when he sees here from afar in The One where Monica gets a roomate?) but it's not given whilst three intros are. Timrollpickering 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However, although an explanation for their behaviour may not have been given explicitly on the show, we should also take into account character traits that are somewhat less subtle but equally valid. Not everything can be explained verbally because not everything will make for a good scene. Rachel is often shown to be self-centred, whereas Chandler tends to be less confrontational and a bit of a push-over (e.g. the butt-slapping incident with his boss at work, the ease with which he allows Monica to dominate their relationship, etc). These traits can be used to explain their behavior, and consequently this error becomes less than obvious. Mandibla

True, but if one has to start constructing explanations on the basis of character traits (are there any other occasions in the series when Rachel and/or Chandler have completely forgotten previously meeting someone?) or thinking "artistic licence" we're into the realm of "this looks like an error but..." which is really just speculation. I think we should simply state both of these and leave it to the individual to judge.

(Also from recollection it's Monica who introduces Rachel to Chandler in the first episode and as we see in later episodes Monica is present in every flashback that Rachel and Chandler were both in. And Monica is not the type to forget such details.) Timrollpickering 00:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Should there be a List of recurring characters in Friends article? Jack and Judy Geller for example are pretty major in their own right, yet aren't really mentioned anywhere. The same goes for Frank Jr, Chandler & Rachel's parents, Ugly Naked Guy and Mr. Heckles. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff?

Since Phoebe's sister, Ursula Buffay, was a waitress on Mad About You, would you consider Friends to be a spinoff of Mad About You? - HG707 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even a tiny bit. Friends isn't about Ursula she only appears a few times and has very little bearing on any significant plot line. ~~ Peteb16 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Right but theorically some of NBC's series are in the same continuity: Friends, Mad About You, Seinfeld and the Single Guy.

Ursula is a Mad About You character. Althoug George and Susan like to watch Mad About You on TV, Paul is friends with Kramer and used to live in Jerry's appartment. Oh and Ross is friends with Jonathan Eliot, from The Single Guy--201 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I'm not denying there are links between the two series, however Friends isn't dependant on any plot lines or characters that started in Mad About You. Joey is a spin-off because it's directly dependant on a storyline and a character established in Friends. Plus I always had the feeling that Ursula's presence in Friends is almost an in-joke rather than an attempt at continuity. ~~ Peteb16 22:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

The trivia section in this article is completely random and out of control. Detailed information on certain episodes should remain in that episode's article rather than here. Some of the tidbits are also already mentioned in the rest of this article, while others could me merged into other sections. Many don't even need to be mentioned. I'll try cleaning it up a bit. --Musicpvm 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

20 July: Which episode revealed that Ross' middle name was Eustace??

Drinking pregnancy

The two points added, why are they inconsistencies or errors? Pregnant women are allowed to drink within reason. I've removed them and put them here until a justification is presented.

From Here As with any health diet, alcohol is recommended in small amounts, no more than 15 units per week .....

• When Rachel was pregnate and was thinking about switching to Ross's building when the Dutch woman died, Rachel was shown with Joey drinking wine when Ross walked in and told them that the apartment was all Rachel's.

• When Rachel was pregnate, Phoebe and Rachel went to lunch with Rachel's father, and he ordered her some wine which she drank.

Cheers Khukri ^(talk .

Spinoff

Why does "It's a Guy Thing" keep being deleted. If it is lie, why is it on the Friends page, but doesnt have its own section Sam

It keeps getting deleted because it's not true. That reference that cites it also says that the Friends specials were a done deal - not a reliable source. Since http://www.google.com/search?q=%22it's+a+guy+thing%22+friends gives no results and Matthew Perry is signed on to Studio 60, I don't see what the issue is, it doesn't belong in the article. GrahameS 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I was on this site in August, and there was a section refering to a Thanks giving special for friends sometime in the future. Is that true, or not? thanks, bobsmith319.

10th season intro statement?

The section on season 10 begins with:

The producers did not think Friends' tenth season would be its last; there were even talks about a movie.

As far as I know, and according to the Friends... 'til the end book, the 9th season was supposed to be the last one (not the 10th season), but at last second, a 10th 18-episodes (shorter) season was signed. Therefore, when the 10th season began, it was confirmed that it was going to be the last one, making the previous statement wrong.

I quote from the book:

When it began, Season 9 was going to be the final season of Friends, but it soon became apparent that NBC didn't want to bid a fond farewell to Friends just yet.

Unless someone proves me wrong, I think it's safe to remove that first fact from season 10. --Enano275 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while, I removed the sentences. --Enano275 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Writers

I've read that the principal writer was dropped for the second last series. The show suffered, and he was brought back for the final series. Anyone know about this?--80.4.169.22 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing trivia

A lot of the trivia section seems irrelevant/unverifiable/etc, I've put the removed parts here.

• During the opening credits, the six main actors appear alphabetically by last name: Aniston, Cox-Arquette, Kudrow, LeBlanc, Perry, and Schwimmer. Coincidentally, the three girls of the group come first, then the three guys.

• The fictional addresses of the Friends' apartments are:

Joey - 495 Grove St. Apt. 19, New York, NY 10001

Monica - 495 Grove St. Apt 20, New York, NY 10001

Phoebe - 5 Morton St. Apt. 14, New York, NY 10001

• In the opening sequence in early seasons, Perry (Chandler) is seen at the fountain turning his head side to side with his mouth full and then spitting water upwards. In several episodes in later seasons, this clip is reversed so that he appears to take falling water into his mouth and then turning his head from side to side.

• In advertising before the final episode of Friends was aired on Channel 4, in the UK, the network cleverly rearranged the letters of FRIENDS to make the anagram ENDSFRI (meaning, the show ends this Friday). The advertising used a similair design and font to the way the word Friends is seen in the opening credits.

• All of the characters have kissed the other five characters, although some of the kisses were mentioned and not seen.

GrahameS 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia's trivia, isn't it? Those points don't seem too bad in my opinion. --86.112.204.242 09:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Beginnings with no ends

Seems to be quite a trend on wikipedia now. Lovok 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added two Endspoiler templates: {{Endspoiler}} - I hope that's better now. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Long Article

It's currently over 60kB, which is way longer than the guidelines suggest. I'm thinking we should move the Season synopses and/or the Errors/Inconsistencies to their own articles, cause frankly the errors section keeps growing *way* longer than it needs to be. Are there any objections/better ideas? GrahameS 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

·Both season synopsises and error/inconcistencies should be put into new pages. They really don't belong in the general page for the show but can easily be linked to from it.Pandaki 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed - I'll probably do that ASAP CloudNine 11:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed the Errors section, the article is 55kB now, still sorta long. GrahameS 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The new article has already been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of errors and inconsistencies in Friends. Maybe it should be merged back into this article but with all the trivial errors/inconsistencies removed. For example, "The camera then goes to Monica, and then back to Joey where he is holding bottles in one hand and cans in the other". Such trivial errors don't belong in an encylopedia. Only the notable inconsistencies, the ones dealing with the actual storylines, should be included. --musicpvm 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think you're cutting out too much stuff. Remember this is a 10-year series, and one of the most popular ones too. One expects it to have a large article. There is nothing which is not in other articles on TV serieses... but since there are 10 seasons this info comes out quite large. Remember those are only guidelines... exceptions are possible. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the article is too long. It is that is filled with trivia and other things that are not interesting. A lot of things should be cut or perhaps moved to a sub article. When that is done you can start writing interesting sections like the production history and critical reactions. If anyone wants inspiration then have a look at The West Wing (TV series). --Maitch 14:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pheobe

What happened to the big ol' list of Pheobe's songs??? --Zeldamaster3 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested split

Someone has requested the 'Errors and inconsistencies' section should be split from this article into a new article called Errors and inconsistencies in Friends. However, a discussion was not simultanously opened here to debate this issue. So I've taken the liberty of starting it myself.

Split section 'Errors and inconsistencies'

Errors and inconsistencies (section) → Errors and inconsistencies in Friends Rationale: The section has become too large and difficult to navigate. It is beginning to outway more relevant points of the article. ~~ Peteb16 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey (I)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support (based on its size, but not necessarily the quality of its content) ~~ Peteb16 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The separate page has just gone through AfD resulting in it being merged into here. The list needs serious rethinking - there's far too much of "this prop moved between shots", "the wardrope department made a mistake", "these episodes were set back to back but recorded apart and it shows" and "this throwaway one line contradicts that one". Really the list should be confined to major inconsistencies in plot and differing information about the characters - e.g. the way their birthdays and ages bounce all over, the way Phoebe's family members keep getting found and forgotten or that we actually see Rachel and Chandler meet for the first time three times. Also what is the basis for the claim The Pilot isn't canon? Timrollpickering 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Timrollpickering. Most of the list is extremely trivial and unencylopedic. It needs to be be significantly trimmed down. It should only include the notable inconsistencies in the plot. --musicpvm 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the article has already been split without waiting for a result to this proposal. ~~ Peteb16 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Errors and inconsistencies

To get the trivia list under control, I am removing production errors (i.e. props moving, costumes not always matching, hair lengths changing in episodes set consecutively) and "this one liner/prop or set placement contradicts that one liner" as a starting point. I'm also deleting speculation, such as the suggestion The Pilot isn't canon. All the deleted items are listed here if anyone wants to add them to the individual episode pages:

• In The One With the Flashback in Season 3, there is a camera error at the end of the episode. Ross walks into the bar (later turned into Central Perk), and goes behind the counter and puts a bunch of shot glasses on the counter, all spread out next to each other. In the next camera shot, the glasses are all lined up in a row. In the next camera shot after that, the glasses are all spread out again.
• In The One With the Invitation, Ross addresses Rachel's wedding invitation to "Rachel Greene." This is the only episode where Rachel's last name is spelled incorrectly.
  • (I've seen this one discussed in the FAQs. When Rachel's parents appear their surname is always spelt "Green" in the credits but the only times it's spelt oncreen are here as "Greene" and at Emma's birthday where the cake company write "Green" on the box but get the wrong cake. So who's most likely to make a mistake?)
• In "The One Where Chandler Doesn't Like Dogs", Chandler is criticised by his friends for not liking dogs. However, in a previous episode, "The One With Joey's Porsche". Phoebe asks Monica and Chandler if they would mind watching "three incredibly cute little puppies" and Chandler agrees.
• In "The One where Nana Dies Twice", Joey says that he didn't think Chandler was gay the first time they met, however, in "The One With The Flashback", we can see that when they met, Joey says "Hey, I'm ok with the gay thing", by the time Chandler was showing Joey his apartment for the first time.
• In Season 9, in The One Where Emma Cries; Ross uses "quotation fingers" to Joey in Central Perk. Joey claims that he does not understand the usage of quotation fingers, and incorrectly uses them during the course of the episode. However, In Season 8, in The One with the Secret Closet; Joey asks Chandler if he had a hairpin to pick the lock to the closet. Chandler tells Joey, that "he's not a nine year old girl" and tells Joey that Monica might have one. When Chandler walks off camera, Joey says: Yeah, sure. "Monica." and uses quotation fingers. He also used them in an episode, in which he said "So what, Monica and Chandler are doing it." Rachel said "Joey!". Then Joey, using quotation fingers, says "Oh, sorry; Making love."
• In the season 6 episode The One With The Routine, Rachel is trying to find the presents that Monica bought for her, Phoebe, and Chandler for Christmas, and she looks in a closet. However, in a season 8 episode (The One With The Secret Closet) it is revealed that no one has ever seen nor knows what is in that closet. Also, in season one, The One With The Boobies when Monica comes running out of the shower, you can see the opened closet in the background filled with coats.
• In Season 8, in the episode "The One With Ross's Step Forward, Ross in desperation to hold onto his relationship with Mona; gives Mona the only key to his apartment. He then asks his friends if they have an extra key to his apartment. Monica replies, "No, you never gave one to me." Ross replies, "Why would I? It's my apartment!" In Season 5, in the episode The One With The Ride Along, Monica tells Rachel to get supplies and ingredients from Ross' place to make margaritas, and Monica tells Rachel that Ross' keys are in her drawer.
• When Monica and Chandler are on their honeymoon, the friends need to get into Monica and Chandler's apartment. It is discovered that Rachel still has her old key to the apartment. However, when she moved out, Rachel gives her key back to Monica.

I'm also not sure this is an internal inconsistency:

• The show is set in New York City. Joey was a cast member on Days of Our Lives, which is filmed in Los Angeles, but is still always around.
  • ...and without checking I'm willing to bet that none of the celebrities who appear as themselves (or are unseen characters) were actually involved in the events they're shown in. Is this really notable?

Timrollpickering 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the mix-up?

"Birthday Mix-Ups Throughout the series the characters birthdays have been noted and changed many times. Rachel said to Gunther her birthday is on May 5, but in Season 7 its said Monica and Chandler's wedding is May 15."

What does the birthday of Rachel have to do with the wedding of Monica and Chandler? How does this phrase prove a change in the birthday dates?

Contradiction Regarding Revival of Friends

Explain to me how "As of August 2006, however, no reunion appears likely in the near future" and "They start filming end 2006 or early 2007" are compatible? Shouldn't one of these statements be deleted, or should it be "They WOULD start filming..."? I don't know which one to delete, but I thought I'd point out the confusion. Any thoughts? (These were both at the end of the overview section.) Nerrolken 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested citations for the information. If this fails to materialise, both sentences should be removed. In case you weren't aware of it, the sentence "They WOULD start filming..." would not be acceptable under Wikipedia policy. (See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). ~~ Peteb16 20:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters

I realize the characters have uneven article formatting. While Phoebe and Chandler have sidebars with statics, the rest (but Monica) have pictures. Shouldn't all have the same?--201 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

¬¬°Could I BE more ignored...--201 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after checking how most series are handled, I decided it'd be ok if I add "infoboxes" to all of the characters, so I did the main. Feel free to check it out an make corrections if you feel it is necesary.

I don't like the current picture used in Monica's article.--201 22:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff!

Since Phoebe's sister, Ursula Buffay, was a waitress on Mad About You, would you consider Friends to be a spinoff of Mad About You? - HG707 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even a tiny bit. Friends isn't about Ursula she only appears a few times and has very little bearing on any significant plot line. ~~ Peteb16 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Right but theorically some of NBC's series are in the same continuity: Friends, Mad About You, Seinfeld and the Single Guy.

Ursula is a Mad About You character. Althoug George and Susan like to watch Mad About You on TV, Paul is friends with Kramer and used to live in Jerry's appartment. Oh and Ross is friends with Jonathan Eliot, from The Single Guy--201 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section specifying this trivia!! Friends, Mad About You, Seinfeld, the Single Guy and Joey sort of share continuity.--201 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a spin off, since the writers and producers never intended for Ursula and Pheobe to be twins. They only did that to explain why Pheobe and Ursula look the same but are in different shows. (Although I see no reason for them to have to explain since there are tons of actors that appear in more than one show at a time, but, meh, whatever). UnDeRsCoRe 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Friends (TV series) → Friends – This article was moved to "Friends (TV series)" without any discussion and with an edit summary that can be considered a personal attack ("Obvious. If you can't see a problem, I'd recommend a mental examination"). Well, I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. The TV show is by far the most common usage. Also, if somebody was searching for Friendship, they would most probably enter "Friendship" or the singular "Friend" into the search box. There are over 1500 links directed to Friends, and they are ALL for the TV show. All these links are now being directed to the disambiguation page. --musicpvm 06:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey (II)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. --musicpvm 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support — I don't see any problem (although I've yet to have a mental examination). There are several articles that clash with the name, but it's an extremely notable topic, so it's worth just having a link to a disambig page (much like Nirvana). I've had the same experiences at Pixies (band) (used to be Pixies) where people move without consensus. CloudNine 10:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The move was arbitary. Timrollpickering 11:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I hate the show, but there's no question it's the most notable entry for "Friends". Croctotheface 12:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support- As stated above, It's the most notable article with the word "Friends" in it. UnDeRsCoRe 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The edit summary for the move is not civil, that's true; but, the move was a good one. Although the American TV show is very likely the most popular search term, there are simply too many alternatives (including the common English word, and several other artistic works) to give the show first billing. The parenthetical qualifier is reasonable when the series' full name has so many other uses. Although the move was unilateral (and impolite, given the summary), I believe a wider poll (outside of the Friends talk page, where show-supporters are more likely to dwell) would confirm its correctness. Xoloz 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support The majority of the What links here list seems to point at the TV show. I was only sampling though, the list is far too massive. ~ trialsanderrors 17:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed per Xoloz, who put it more appropriately than I. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opposed per Xoloz - although insults aren't productive, neither is ambiguous naming of articles. ~~ Peteb16 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Note: I oppose the move, but I'd like to see the redirect altered to make this page more accessible, see discussion below. ~~ Peteb16 11:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opposed Per Xoloz. TV shows should all be under such a label. ThuranX 22:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I thought that one of the principal objects of Wikipedia was to make information easily accessible to the world. Therefore, because the majority of the people who type "Friends" in the search box are looking for information on the TV series, the article on the TV series should appear right away. This issue doesn't concern the fact if one is a fan of the series or not, it will simply make this a better encyclopedia. And the argument that every article on TV series should have "TV series" in parenthesis after the name isn't great. Is there any reason to add this to Veronica Mars, Desperate Housewives or The Simpsons? At least I don't think so. I also support musicpvm's view in the discussion below. Tryggvia 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yet again Wiki geeks are making it harder for ordinary users. Everyone visiting this page wants the TV series so stop fucking about and move it back. Xania 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per ACS. Izhmal (User page | |User talk page) 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So you created this username earlier today, you have edited two articles (both of which User:Ace Class Shadow has previously edited), and then you vote for your VERY first time ever on this page move with an "oppose" vote just like User:Ace Class Shadow. Hmm. --musicpvm 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Huh? Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It's a bit annoying that all this work has to be done to revert back to what should have been an illegal move. Bssc81 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Illegal" is a bit harsh. and Music, don't call me a newbie. No offense, Izzy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Response: How is it harsh? You shouldn't have been allowed to move it without a requested move and a vote. I'm not sure why it wasn't reverted on those grounds. Now we have to reach a consensus to move it BACK to where it was before? That makes no sense. Bssc81 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If you want to talk, let's continue this below. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I think having '(TV Show)' classifies it a little better. I know to look for most TV shows now by adding it to the end (e.g. Monk (TV Series). I do, however, would like to see this standarized to either TV Show or TV Series. I prefer TV Series for those who are curious. sohmc 09:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Naming guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)) clearly state that the disambiguator is needed if the series is not the most common usage (in which case the disambiguation page would be at Friends), and should not be used otherwise. I think we can safely say it's very unlikely someone will look for anything other than Friends (TV series) or friendship (I like that it's specifically mentioned at the top here, by the way). Weak support: looking at the links show the TV series is clearly most popular. TimBentley (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything Xoloz said. Jonathunder 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Given that there appears to be a rough consensus for moving, I've carried out the move request. For those who feel it should be at a different title, I would encourage you to discuss further here. As an aside Friends (TV series) is not a correct title for the page, as there are multiple TV series with that title. JYolkowski // talk 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The redirect change and change of links wasn't my idea. It's the right idea, but I didn't think anyone would do it. I just hoped the article would stay, domain-wise, at the right title. Notability is debatable. The series is over. How notable is it going to be in...say...ten years? There are far too many uses and placing the article simply at "friends" would show a clear bias. People who believe that's okay are both the reason I stop disambiguating more actively and made that crappy summary. You honestly think a TV named after a notable term deserves the original term in an encyclopedia? That's like saying Batman's Dog is should be at "Ace" rather than the the playing card.

You people don't get it. This isn't okay. Disambiguation isn't here to horn in on your work or ruin a good thing. Disambiguation corrects ambiguous misuses of names. If you all worked together correcting the links rather than on this evil vote, you'd actually do more for the project—including, but not limited to this article—than you could actually half, or even quarter the week of time it might take one or two people. But whatever. You all think an ended TV show is more notable than anything that came before or could come after it? Fine. Maybe you justified my edit summary, after all. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Friends" is the plural form of a "dicdef". I don't see how it can be considered an "original term in an encyclopedia". I really don't see anybody searching for "Friends" when looking for an article on "Friendship". Nobody had a problem with the television series being located at "Friends" for the last 5 years (the article was created in October 2001). The television series is very obviously the most notable. And yes, in ten years, the show will still be extremely notable. --musicpvm 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you ready to change all the wikilinks to Friends that should now point at Friends (TV series), Ace Class Shadow? ~ trialsanderrors 04:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

People here are voting for the wrong thing. 'Friends (TV Series)' does not need moving, the title is perfectly accurate. What people seem to dislike, and I personally think is wrong, is the fact that when you type 'Friends' in the search box you get a disambiguation page and then you've got to look through it to find the article you wanted. The article naming isn't at fault, it's the redirect on the 'Friends' page to 'Friends (disambiguation) that causes this problem. If it redirected to this article, no one could get confused as it quite clearly says "Friends (TV Series)" at the top of the page. If they wanted something else they can click the disambiguation link at the top of the page. This is not an uncommon procedure amongst other articles so people rightfully can complain if it's not done here. So, I stand by my opposition to renaming the article, but I do support the redirect being changed on the 'Friends' article page to 'Friends (TV Series)'. ~~ Peteb16 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peteb16, I would agree with you, but your proposition raises another issue. This would result in double redirections from pages that link to "Friends" (which was previously the article on the TV series). Tryggvia 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, that would not follow Wikipedia's naming policies. If Friends redirects here, why not just title the article "Friends"? If this move is not successful, Friends (disambiguation) would be moved to Friends, and if the move is successful, this page will be moved to Friends, but Friends cannot just be a redirect. It would not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. --musicpvm 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm in the wrong, but I'm not sure how my suggestion is against naming policies. I've read the relevant help page but it doesn't seem to suggest anything specific about redirects that match this issue, I'll keep checking though. However I have found a guideline page that does suggest that TV series such as Freinds should have (TV Series) appended to their names. Ultimately however, these rules aren't written in stone. Unfortunately in the mean time, I believe it's now got to the point were the dispute is becoming heated. It may be a good idea if we find a third party to judge this situation instead. ~~ Peteb16 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The page you linked to states "If the title of the TV program is the most common usage of the phrase, let it be the title of the article for example The Apprentice or Guiding Light." That would be the case that people voting "support" believe that Friends fits into. The terms The Apprentice and Guiding Light have other uses, but the televison series are the most common usage, so the pages are located at those title (with no disambiguation such as "TV series" as it unnecessary to disambiguate when you pick a "primary topic"). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. --musicpvm 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I must've skipped over that bit. However, in my own humble opinion, I believe that the ambiguity of the word 'Friends' is still too large to safely declare that the TV series is its most common usage and even if it is, it's going to become less so as time passes. ~~ Peteb16 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, here's what the policies are: Ambiguously named articles should have their names changed. Shows like How I Met Your Mother obviously don't qualify. "Friends" does. Next, disambiguation pages should either have the "(disambiguation)" prefix when referring to articles named after a general term, like Amun (disambiguation) instead of Amun. However, if the term itself has no real article worthy content, it should be the disambiguation page andget the name. Blur, Zane, et cetera. I'd say Blur is the best example, being very similar in situation and, hopefully, result. Blur is not an encyclopedic term. There are articles about "unfocused imagery", as stated on the dab page, but "Blur" itself is ambiguous and was actually being used as the domain for the band. Scary, I know. Ultimately, it was agreed that the disambiguation page get the title and the band be title appropriately at long last. The only way "Friends" could remain as a redirect would be if it was used for Friendship and that would be just as biased. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried looking up the term "friends" both on Google and Yahoo! As those two are the Internet's most popular search engines I think the top results there reflect what the common people of the world are looking for. The results:

• Google: 9 out of the first 10 results were related to the TV show, only the tenth one was on another subject.
• Yahoo!: 8 out of the first 10 results were related to the TV show, including the top six results.

Maybe we could use this information to help us decide what to do. Isn't it obvious what everyone is looking for? Tryggvia 01:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. There's no question in my mind that 99% of the people who search "Friends" at Wikipedia are looking for the television series; hopefully this move will be successful so users will be able to find what they are looking for easily. --musicpvm 03:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching is one thing, linking is another. Just think, if this article had been probably titled from the beginning, do you really believe "Friends" would have so many links? No. Okay. Now, go with me, if that's the case, then isn't the number of links a pretty weak point to argue? The number of links would go to whatever the page's title is. We can't say for sure how few or many the word "Friends" would get on its own, so the point is moot. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent accusations of the Ace

Okay. So far, I've been accused of sockpuppetry and performing an "illegal move". I'll handle the latter, since the former obviously wasn't made by someone man enough to see it through.

First off, Wikipedia—and, of course, the foundation—has policies, not laws. (This is not AOL or something.) One policy even says ignore all if they prevent you from making a productive edit. The only thing that could be seen as unlawful is vandalism. I fight that - HARD. Doubt everyone else can say the same.

Now, I moved page without consensus and with a bad edit summary. Still, the move itself was not really controversial. This is the TV series. At worst, I expect that things would go as Pete recommended above. The article would have a proper title, but "friends" would still redirect. I'm still shocked you all care enough to fight for a domain yet not try to help the disambiguation effort. It's an ended TV show. You can say what you want, but it isn't more notable than any that could come after it. Another TV series could come after it, an oscar winning movie, a hit single, et cetera. Antway, the move wasn't the problem. It was how I went about it and I admit. I'd never submit a formal move request for this, but I could have at least left a better summary. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go making personal attacks again. I guess you can't get any of your weak points across without attacking someone. It's more than evident from a glace at your user talk page and your other edit summaries. You have been blocked before for personal attacks, and you should be blocked again. About the sockpuppetry, I don't like to jump to conclusions, but it's just extremely suspicious that Izhmal (talk · contribs) just created an account the other day and the first two articles he/she edits are ones you have edited. And then the user decides to vote for the very first time here? It's obvious from the users' first edits and edit summaries (which btw are extremely similar to way you write your edit summaries), that the user is not really new to Wikipedia. And then in the reply above, he states "Adding comment. Sorry if this isn't the place. I'm...kinda new and confused." He/she definitely does not seem new and confused judging from their first edits.

And regarding the move, yes it was against Wikipedia policy. It should have been taken to WP:RM as the article has been located at Friends for five years and everybody seemed to agree this was the primary topic until you came along and decided that it was not and moved it with no consensus and a ridiculous edit summary. The edit summary itself proves that you knew the move was not uncontroversial as you would not have made that attack if you were not expecting that there would be users wanting it moved back.

Finally, who cares what comes after this series? You can say that about every single article at Wikipedia. That is not for us to decide right now. If in the future, something more notable comes along with the same title, a move can be discussed at that point, but it is beyond ridiculous to discuss that now. Finally, "Friends" is not just some random show that has ended. It has had a lasting cultural impact across the globe, is one of the most popular sitcoms of all time, and one of America's most successful series worldwide. It continues to air in syndication in over 50 countries, and this article has thousands of links directed to it. --musicpvm 18:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't editted either one of those articles frequently, and it's freaking superheroes, man. Batman's utility belt? Flamebird? (They did correct my latter mistake, I'll admit.) And edit summaries? Everyone's edit summaries look similar. I'm not that nice, though. I mean, "With respect to the previous edit"? Puh-lees. I fear they're gonna get stepped on acting like that. If anything, theirs are better than mine, when you getting beyond the afor mentioned niceities. And how about St. Mark's Poetry Project? I've never editted that. Seriously, you're sullying my rep and this new person's. My intel, too. If I was going to rig a vote, I'd have created sockpuppets a long time ago with totally different interests and established them as separate Wikipedians. Four—the amount of votes it would take at this time—newbies all voting before they themselves can even move a page? Yeah. Majorly suspicious. I may not be polite, but I'm not retarded, either.

As for the series and the move, it's still justified by all the other uses. Three movies,—one of which should be moved, too.—a korean drama, an episode of Mo, a magazine, a song, an album, the same-titled soundtrack to one of the movies, et cetera! For god's sake, you think one TV show should be titled "friends" when all those articles aren't? Notability goes out the window when there are over five other uses being biasedly being consider "second" to a TV series that ended two years ago. I have nothing against it, you or anything else involved in this conflict. I just don't see why you want to support bias. This isn't simply a pre-emptive measure. The other uses are right there, all with articles. Listing this article as "friends" over them is not only ambiguous, but insulting. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to point out that almost all users who enter the term "friends" in the search string, are looking for the same thing, the article on the TV series. Let's make everything easier for them by moving the article back to it's old place. Also, as musicpvm said, this show is not like any other TV show as it is one of the most popular and most influential television series of the 20th century, worldwide.

Uh...Hi. Sorry I've taken so long to respond. School, HW, you know. I'm Izhmal. Sorry for all the trouble I seem to have caused. Let me just say that although I'm newly registered, I have read up some. Wikipedia offers detailed ways of avoiding common mistakes. Also, I kinda agree with Ace. I mean, I try to be on my best behavior, especially online, but they make good points. Also, I like the show. I've been reading the article and noticed a name change. When I saw the survey and read the discussion, I thought I'd vote. And I was confused. It's not everyday someone accuses me of being a sockpuppet. Anyway, I just came by to speak for myself. Sorry again for any trouble. Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)