Talk:Friends/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ratings Numbers

Many of the ratings numbers are incorrect. The average number of viewers for season 5, for example, is listed as 23.5M. However, if you follow the link cited, that 23.5 is actually the percent change in viewership from the previous season. Many of the remaining seasons cite inaccessible newspaper articles of dubious provenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.176.212.31 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They also contradict the information on the article about Seinfeld. According to that page, Seinfeld was the top-rated show of the 1994-95 season with 19.65 million viewers. According to this page, Friends had 24.3 million viewers in that season. Aquila89 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is because many articles on Wikipedia confuse household rating and number of viewers. Household ratings are the percentage of households watching a given show, viewers count all of the people in those households watching. Viewer numbers are always higher than household ratings. I just clarified this in the ratings section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profe DB (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Singles

I'm surprised that there is no mention that Friends had its origins in Cameron Crowe's film Singles. DFS (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be tricky to do because it appears to conflict with what's in the article now (Conception section). However, there is a cite in the Singles article about Crowe that is citable. I dunno, maybe you could look for sources that address the apparent conflict in the origin of the show.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see how the timelines match-up and see if there's something there. DFS (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC) (source:http://www.jimdero.com/Bangs/on_the_set.htm)

Worldlingo.com

Just an enquiry. This article uses "worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en" as a reference (currently reference No. 83). What makes this source reliable? It appears to be a wiki site; less than 20 articles on wikipedia are using it as a reference and this is the only article using it that is higher that start class. Freikorp (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used as a reference. It says it got its info from Wikipedia. Feel free to replace it with something, even if it's just a citation needed template. If you don't find something, I'll try to look at it tomorrow. I'm signing off now. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put a citation needed tag on it for now as I have to sign off now myself, If nobody's found a source by the time I get a chance to log on again I'll look for one too. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone notice?

In season 1, the apartment's door has number 4 on it, then in season 2 it's apartment 20. Also, in the spin off Joey, The guy who played Eddie during season 2 of Friends, was then brought in to play Gina's boyfriend/husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.228.240 (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Also, Frank, Phoebe's brother appears in season 1 and Joey's agent also plays the nurse who delivers the child of the girl Joey met in the hospital while Carol was giving birth to Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canem02 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

Just wanted to let the folks who watch this page know that since File:Friends titles.jpg has been removed from the article, it will probably be nominated for deletion by one of the WP:NFCC "enforcers" as non-free media that is not in use. If people don't want the image to be deleted, I would strongly suggest adding it back to the article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I added back the image to the infobox. I moved the logo somewhere else in the article, but, frankly, I don't think the logo is needed at all. The image in the infobox has the logo in it, so I don't get the point. Also, even if we retain the logo in the article, I wouldn't put it where I did, but I had trouble finding a good spot, and even "Show preview" on this article takes forever because the article is too long, so I got tired of experimenting and waiting. I'm open to opinions on whether we should keep the logo at all and, if so, where.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support getting rid of it (the new logo). It adds nothing to the article; it's already in the better logo that has been used for years. It probably also fails #8 of WP:NFCC as "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." (although I must admit I'm no image expert). Jenks24 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else comments; otherwise, I'll remove the logo as I agree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that the new logo should stay where it meant to be... at the infobox. Currently, the screenshot that is there is from the season 1 opening, but with every new season that came out, opening is different. I think that there definitely should be just the logo, with no background, as it was on the screenshot. Cheers,  InfamousPrince  11:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, openings were recycled throughout the seasons and that particular screenshot is seen in seasons 4,5,6 and 9. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It not changing the fact that it is much better to have just the logo, except the screenshot, but that is just my opinion.  InfamousPrince  12:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Infamous, please do not restore the logo as you did without first achieving some consensus here. There are two editors in this discussion who do not want the logo in the article at all, let alone prominently in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I cannot see that the new basic logo says anything of value and would prefer it was not included in the article. The original screenshot is more descriptive and representative. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Joey's pick-up line

It's "How'r you doin'?", short for "How are you doing?", not "How you doin'?" It takes a sharp ear to catch. Joey's friends, however, often say "How you doin'?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 January 2012‎

Some would disagree:

• "Matt LeBlanc uses Joey Tribbiani catchphrase in an attempt to get laid…". 3am. 2011-12-19. Retrieved 2012-01-29. He asked her: "What ya doin'?" Um, small thing, Matt – you kind of said it wrong there. It's HOW. Actually everyone knows that.
• "Matt: I'll be hair for you..." The Sun. 2010-06-30. Retrieved 2012-01-29. AS Joey Tribbiani in Friends, his dark, brooding good looks and How You Doin?' catchphrase helped him land dozens of ladies.
• "And it's goodbye from them ..." The Guardian. 2004-05-07. Retrieved 2012-01-29. Joey, as the show is called, will probably take his Friends catchphrase How you doin?" with him, as well as a few of his co-stars.
• "Episodes: The one where Matt LeBlanc plays himself..." The Independent. 2011-01-26. Retrieved 2012-01-29. ...gleefully parroting Joey's catchphrase, "How you doin?" as though they are the first ...
• "Friends star Matt LeBlanc back to TV - as himself". Reuters. 2010-01-10. Retrieved 2012-01-29. ...Joey look-alikes practicing his "Friends" catch-phrase "How you doin?".

There are others, but I don't really care enough to cite more references. ;-) auburnpilot (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And its Joey! He doesn't have to be grammatically right! :) --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to stick with the pronounciation that actually aired on TV, whatever might have been in the script. If, say, we were quoting from a Saturday Night Live skit, I'd prefer the aired version, rather than the script, as actors occasionally improvise, and most people know what aired, not what was written down. I think the same principle applies with sitcoms, even if actors aren't supposed to improvise. I'll put in a qualifier, though. RobertGustafson (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stick with what you will, but you need sources to support changes. What you think he said is not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone should use one of those voice-analysis devices that was used on Neil Armstrong, which a few years ago--long after 1969--revealed that he did say "One small step for a man, ...", which ran contrary to "accepted" documentation up to then. Such technology could resolve this once and for all. All I can say is listen carefully. My source is the reruns of the show itself; I'll trust the actual tape over testimony after the fact about what anybody--even the writers--thinks Matt LeBlanc said. If an objective voice analysis can show there's no "r"--or if you can produce a source that has Matt himself asserting that--I'll let go of this. Until then, it's subject to debate.RobertGustafson (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition. We can't just take your word for it, you must cite a reliable source for this. See WP:V: "verifiability, not truth". Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Listen to his utterances yourself. Besides, all the sources listed above are of other people, not the actor or an outside third party, commenting on the text of the tag line. I have little doubt that "How" was written into the script. But does Matt himself say that's what he said? I prefer to let the matter be decided objectively by either the actor or voice anlaysis. I'm quite familiar with "verifiability, not truth", and I'm turning it back on you: The issue isn't how the actor was supposed to pronounce it; it's how the actor actually pronounced it. If you can't verify that he actually delivered the first word as "How", as opposed to "How'r", there should be a qualifier, such as "scripted as "How you doin'?" " (bolding mine).RobertGustafson (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, what you think he says is not a reliable source. You need reliable, secondary sources to make such a claim and Wikipedia editors do not fall into that category. Listening to what he says and making a claim based on that constitutes original research, which is not permitted. Until such time as you can prove that what he said included the "r", our policies require that we go with the sources we have. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen enough reverts. Time for WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard if no one else knows what to do. I don't want a 3RR, and I don't want bad happenings to this article, as long as it is semi-protected. Look at Kip Noll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); some person inserted an alleged death of that person, and there were no verifiable sources to confirm that. Therefore, it was reported to WP:BLPN, and that user kept re-inserting until he was blocked for 24 hours. I hope something good comes out of you about Joey's tiring (no offense) catchphrase; I hope discussion comes first next time. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is to be used for actual disputes; what we have here is a single editor failing to understand basic concepts of this project. RobertGustafson's changes are based on what amounts to original research and have no place in the article. Reliable sources have verified the aspect of this show that seems to be in question. Unless he can provide sources beyond his own ear, RobertGustafson must refrain from continuing to make changes related to the supposed catchphrase. auburnpilot (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Very nice of you guys to talk about me behind my back! (As Ross would say) Anywayyyy ... I've been combing the internet for the last couple of days -- primarily The Official Friends Site (friends-tv.org) and the various Matt LeBlanc website -- in hopes of finding citable evidence one way or the other regarding LeBlanc's personal rendition of the catch phrase -- and thereby putting this issue to bed. Failing to find any, I had the luck of viewing "The One with Joey's Interview" (season 8), where the catchphrase is uttered repeatedly in flashbacks. Sometimes the first word sounds like "How", sometimes "How'r". I've also noticed that LeBlanc stretches out the first word and seemlessly merges it into the second ("you"); if you saw "How you" like that, it's very easily to unintentionally produce an "r" sound in between. (I've tried saying it to myself a few times over the last few days.)

Long story short: Given that all the other characters, when mimicking the phrase, use "How", it's probably in the script as that. And given that LeBlanc's ad-libs (which actors sometimes do) are only occassional and possibly unintentional, it doesn't make sense to call attention to them and stray from the script in this instance. Yes, I was wrong about this, and I stand corrected. I stand up for what I believe is correct, but I have an open mind about being wrong sometimes. (And no, I did not read the most recent commentary above before coming up with this.)

I will make one final change: When removing the "r", editors leave in the apostrophy -- which still suggests that there's clipped text. I will remove the apostrophy.

Satisfied? RobertGustafson (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've scanned through this a few times, but why doesn't someone just stick the subtitles on if they have the DVD when he says it? I'm not sure how good the Friends subtitles could be, they could be lazy and actually put "How are you doing?", or they could have it the actual way he is supposed to say it. Charlr6 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not meaning to dredge this up again, but I was just watching an episode and in it Joey corrects someone saying "How are you doing?" when they are trying to copy him, and it reminded me of this. Youtube clip here if anyone's interested. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work in finding that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category dispute

I don't know what the problem is, but I don't want 3RR in this article any further. This page has been semi-protected so many times, yet I'm seeing a possible 3RR, and I don't want this reported to Noticeboard. Before we edit further, please discuss first. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Would you like me to explain why I think "Category:Television shows set in New York" shouldn't be in the article? I tried to in edit summaries, but perhaps I wasn't clear. (Oh, and the reason this page has been semi'd so many times is because of vandalism, not edit warring.) Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be beneficial to all viewers, although it may not be necessary for you. --George Ho (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. Basically, "Category:Television shows set in New York" should not be used for this article because a subcategory, "Category:Television shows set in New York City", is already in use. From that, the reader can already tell that the show is set in New York state without adding another category. Similarly, "Category:Television shows set in the United States" would apply to this article, but is unnecessary because NYC is in the US. I just had a quick search through the categorisation guidelines, but I was unable to find anything specific to this issue. That said, this is a generally accepted practice to avoid category bloat in articles. As another example, say someone is born in 1964; they are born in the 1960s, so technically "Category:1960s births" is applicable, but we use the more specific "Category:1964 births" (and don't include the former category). Hope this helps. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what you were looking for may be found at the sixth bullet point of Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages: "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Here, "C" equals Category:Television shows set in New York. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, AL, that's exactly what I was looking for. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, as you know this is about the category "Television shows set in New York", someone put this on, then someone reverted it and then I reverted it back to that. Later on it got reverted back to it without it, with it saying that the "Television Shows set in New York" was in a subcategory. I checked, and it wasn't in a sub category. There were four sub categories, and this one wasn't one of them. What you say about people being able to tell it is set in New York by being set in New York City, they might be interested in clicking on the "New York" category link and seeing a list of other shows or movies that are based in New York, not just New York City. People may know where New York City is, but they might want to find out more about New York itself, and deleting it is limiting people from it. The Subcategories aren't on the bottom of the page, you have to click a link to get to it. And people might not realise that. Charlr6 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As was explained in this edit summary, and again above, the article is in Category:Television shows set in New York City, which is a subcategory of Category:Television shows set in New York, not the other way around. Nobody was talking about Category:Friends, which seems to be where you were looking. Please stop edit-warring over this. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh, I thought that this 'subcategory' was the Friends one, and someone kept saying that "Based in New York" was in the subcategory for Friends, which when I checked it wasn't and that was why I kept changing it back. But the New York City category is located in a bigger category of New York, basically like in real life how New York City is located in the New York state, and on Wikipedia New York City category is in the New York (state) category. Is that right? Charlr6 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Episode count wrong

Can't edit, but Episode count is 237 not 236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbourne (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Curiositys, do you know anothers?

The first sentence in the pilot was "There is nothing to tell". Anothers titles for the sitcom were; "Once Upon A Time In West Village","Insomia Café" and "Across The Hall". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TempUsu2012 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

inspiration from Cameron Crowe film "Singles"

It might be worthwhile to include some information about the similarities between the show and the Crowe film "Singles":

"After Crowe's 1992 movie "Singles," Warner Bros. Television asked him to turn the film into a TV series about a group of six 20-something roommates searching for love. Crowe declined. Several months later, ABC's fall schedule was announced, and it included a show called "Singles" about a group of six 20-something roommates searching for love. Crowe's attorneys moved into action, but the show's producers said it was all a big mistake, and their show was actually "Friends." When the TV show premiered, several details seemed familiar: There was the gang frolicking in the courtyard, hanging out at a coffeehouse and listening to a goofy musician singing about a cat. "I had my lawyer look into it and it turns out that they had changed just enough of the details so that it would be not an easy lawsuit," Crowe says.(A Warner Bros. spokesman declined to comment.)" (source)

- Lemurbaby (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why Ross ended it with Emily

The article states that Ross ended his marriage to Emily when he couldn't/wouldn't/didn't break off all contact with Rachel. That's not exactly true. Ross agreed to break off contact with Rachel, but during a transatlantic phone call, Emily learned that Rachel was with everyone having dinner in the apartment. Emily said she'd feel better once she moved to NY and can know where Ross is every minute. Lack of trust makes Ross realize that the marriage won't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.188.201 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'cast' section

At the moment, the 'cast' section does not list (or even mention most of) the cast members, but rather explains the main six actors' salaries for the show. Perhaps another section title and position within the article are in order? 188.169.229.30 (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)