Talk:Girlfriend/Archive 1

message: I wrote a message at Talk:Boyfriend about merging these articles. See that talk page for details. 66.245.98.79 18:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging articles 

message: I'm a little worried at the non-specific nature of the reference to usage of "womanfriend" as an alternative to "manfriend".  Removals on the basis that "I've never heard of it" are possible so long as no source is cited.  So long as we rely on subjunctive impressions, we may be in trouble. Slac speak up! 02:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm no expert, in a women's studies course at my school we learned that many feminists in the 1970s prefered the term womanfriend over the use of girlfriend or ladyfriend. It is still used today, but far less frequently. MicahMN | Talk 03:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Womanfriend

message: In the synonyms section, I've added partner. I'll try to find a source. If someone else could find one it'd be appreciated. Isopropyl 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partner 

message: ガアルフレンッド) ガアルフレンッド was poorly written. It should be ガールフレンド. A Google search for ガアルフレンッド brings up no results other than this article,  ガアルフレンド brings up about 142 results where as ガールフレン gets about 161,000.
ンッド is virtually never seen and ガール is preferred to ガアル though both are pronounced the same way.
 In addition, the male equivalent would be "ボーイフレンド", not ボイフレンド. The male equivalent of kanojo 彼女 is kareshi 彼氏.
I take issue with the statement that ガールフレンド in Japanese has no romantic connotations. I lived there for eight years from 1994-2002, and I saw both romantic and non-romantic usages.
I'm also pretty sure all this is incorrect. ガールフレンド often means the same as in English. 彼女 mostly just means she/her/that woman etc... There might be a difference between usage in young Japanese and older Japanese - we need a Japanese expert here!--Hontogaichiban 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese 

message: I think it's about time we need an Afd template for the nominations similar to one of GNAA. Any objections?? Georgia guy 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What objections do you have?? Georgia guy 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girlfriend Afd status 

message: I am an English native speaker and I have never heard of the expression "friend girl". Please cite a reference. --Thoughtcat 14:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search is not a reference, as a wisecrack is not an answer for a justified question.  A search on "friend girl" (using the quotes) reveals nothing of relevance. 124.86.11.225 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on the above. Put it back in if you can produce a reference, but I'm taking it out until then. QVanillaQ 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Friend girl?!' 

message: I want to know if there is any reason to allow un-registered Wikipedians to add the unreferenced template. Georgia guy 17:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of a written rule on Wikipedia that says it's unallowed, you're welcome to make the revert as violation of stated Wikipedia policy. 124.86.11.225 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced template 

message: *How should the new merged article be titled?? Georgia guy 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?? 

message: Why was the picture, captioned "My girlfriend" removed? Privacy? Impracticality?
--Maier 03 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, because it's Stephanie Pakrul . . . Slac speak up! 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I didn't know who she was--Maier 03 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic removed 

message: I suggest that someone should remove the popular culture section. There are probably innumberable references to girlfriends in popular culture. Even the ones on the list are not that notable. Andy120290 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  That section is a nonsense. Slac speak up! 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: When used by a girl or woman about another female in a non-sexual, non-romantic context, the 2-word form "girl friend" is usually used to avoid confusion with the romantic meaning, as with "boy friend" when used by males to describe their non-romantic male friends.
Baloney. Women regularly use the word "girlfriend" to describe their platonic female friends, but men never use the word "boyfriend" to describe equivalent relationships between male friends. This is a quirk of our language. marbeh raglaim 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree.  Check Merriam-Webster.  The online version lists both meanings under "girlfriend" and does not have an entry for "girl friend".  If no one can provide a reference for this claim, it should be deleted. 129.27.202.101 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since no one objected, I have removed most of the "girl friend" text but left text that said that people sometimes use "girl friend" to disambiguate. 129.27.202.101 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate 

message: Why is a link to a definition of some cartoon in here? It doesn't make sense that anyone would need this.
205.206.239.158 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magical Girlfriend? 

message: "Boo boo kitty fuck" looks like vandalism to me.  Any references for this? 75.37.19.44 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's your reference (but don't put it back!) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261392/quotes 129.27.237.29 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I'm initiating the formal merge process (not for the first time, by the looks of things) following the failed AfD (see link above).  The AfD was closed "Speedy Keep" as a bad-faith (WP:POINT) nomination, and therefore can't be re-nominated for six months:  however, the closing admin's comment was "If the nominator wants it to be turned into dab page, then they should do so."  I'm not the original nominator, but I'm more than happy to take up the running on his behalf.
This page is little more than a dictionary definition, which we already have at the top of the dab page.  I'm sure that an explanation of the difference between "girlfriend" and "girl friend" wouldn't require more than one extra sentence, and I don't see what additional content this article has at the moment.  The last genuine AfD was the third one (again, see above), closed in April 2006 with a "Keep" result - but many of the "Keep" opinions were along the lines of "potential for improvement".  I don't believe that the article has such potential, and, even if I'm wrong on that point, I don't see any evidence that any improvement has occurred.  I'm therefore proposing that "Girlfriend" becomes a dab page, with the content that's now at Girlfriend (disambiguation).
*Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the above to be a concrete suggestion to improve the _encyclopedia_ by eliminating an article which is merely a dictionary definition with a fancy infobox.  See WP:DICDEF. Tevildo (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I've restored the mergefrom tag; this discussion should continue until a consensus is reached.  At the moment, we have one opinion on either side - let's see what other people think before deciding. Tevildo (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Comment  You are quite correct that not all of these previous AfDs are as useful as some in terms of in-depth discussion on the issues. However, all seven do qualify as attempts to delete the article, which was part of my argument. I'm not going to comment on the legal doctrines or concepts you raised, since I'm not a lawyer. Yes, Benjiboi has done significant and major work on improving the article, as he always does. Part of the systemic problem is that Articles for Deletion is not supposed to be a process to improve an article to the point of addressing the concerns raised in the AfD (as it clearly says), yet that is a by-product of the process, as in article rescue editing. I would rather see more tendency and energy spent to improve articles than to prune them, but that's a subject for another place. I would also believe and agree that this article has improved to the point that it hopefully no longer should be questioned. Does this mean that you are now willing to agree to removal of the , , and  tags based on the improvement? — Becksguy (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (disambiguation) 

message: Why is there such a big gap between the lead and the first section? bibliomaniac15 04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a formatting issue. If the lede is lengthened (which it should be) it should eliminate the problem. If anyone wants to add to the lede see WP:LEDE for suggestions, in essence the lede should be able to stand alone as a mini article and summarize the content. Benjiboi 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There was a formatting template which I've removed, it can be re-added if needed. Benjiboi 05:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Much betterer, Benji.  — Becksguy (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap? 

message: I am getting a little concerned that there are some people on here who are "trying" to change the way people asume of the word Girlfriend. Girlfriend (as a dictionary definition out of Collins) clearly states, a female friend or "A female in a non marital romantic relationship with ref. usually a male". Stop trying to change the optinion people have on the word. For some reason, I don't know why some people can't contemplate the word being used in a romantic sense. For heaven, sake a Girlfriend is a Female partner in a non-marital romantic relationship! --Steven Hipkins (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual relationships between males and their girlfriends are common (especially in the West, though not always the rule). In such cases, as these relationships are based on lust and selfish interests, the term "girlfriend" may also be a synonym for "prostitute", as per traditional Asian culture, because unless the boyfriend pampers the girl and supplies her various material goods for her enjoyment (cash, gifts, luxuries, status etc. also included), no girl is actually interested in a relationship with a boy. In other words, a girlfriend often (if not always) provides sexual enjoyment to her boyfriend for "payment" (not necessarily money). This is the bare truth of this material world. So in principle, how is a girlfriend different from a prostitute? What do others think about this?59.96.226.226 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I believe you're wrong on both counts. A girlfriend can be and is used as just a girlfriend and the photo demonstrates that the two women pictured can be interpreted both ways. Also the term is used in LGBT cultures for people who aren't female - this may be true elsewhere as well. Benjiboi 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for AGF there but no, my primary experience with the term is with gay men using it to refer to each other and people mocking them for doing so. So, I agree with your latest nuanced edits but let's save the mind meld for some other time. Benjiboi 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually it's there for any reader who types in 'girlfriend' whether looking for the album, a book or an explanation. Benjiboi 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are correct, the part I was concerned about was the phrase: This article is about a female partner. I will change it to  which is a WP:NPOV and generic DAB tag pointing to the DAB page. — Becksguy (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Benjiboi 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjiboy, so you have never heard the word girlfriend used to describe a female partner who is in a romantic relationship with a male? Thats obserred! It's the most widely used conotation of the word, a female who is in a romantic relationship with a woman is called his "Girlfriend". What do you think the word Boyfriend means then? --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gothgirlangel1981, I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I basically agree with Allstarecho's assessment above. The term is used to cover multiple genders and sexualities. Benjiboi 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Benjiboy, I don't understand where your coming from because you were basically saying I was wrong and you didn't know the term was used to describe a female partner in a romantic relationship - most commonly a male, his Girlfriend. To be perfectly honest I think there are more "Girlfriends" of male partners than female partners, i'm not saying it should be overlooked - but it seems you are trying to make a small population seem larger than it is. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my last edits, I am now happy as to how the article is layed out. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Girlfriend Meaning

message: An article in The Times, June 26, 2008, headed "Pillow Talk: Prince William and Kate Middleton to wed?" http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article4213432.ece
“girlfriend” - a title first used by Elgiva, future wife of Edmund the Magnificent, in 938, and since given sparingly to royal squeezes only on the advice of the Knights of the Garter.
This might have been made up by the person writing the article, or it might be correct.  I do not know, but find it interesting.  I also do not know the correct way to insert such information into the Wikipedia entry, and my previous attempts at editing were removed. Norm Tered (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the word 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Traps: African American" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate.  The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode.  If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit notice debate 

message: Photographs of people standing together at some distance do not indicate relationships. Nor do they illustrate a global point of view. Nor do they illustrate a historical perspective. Therefore the photos are either pointless, or misleading, and were removed. Also, I noted in a similar situation, the photos are being used to sneak pictures of personal friends, or of editors themselves (or possibly of enemies) into articles. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For people who don't speak English as their first language, pictures are extremely useful. The inclusion of images in this article will help our readers to understand the meaning of the word girlfriend, and also to illustrate the nuance of girl friends (with the space). Also, in a purely technical sense, photographs of people standing together at some distance do indeed indicate relationship. Relationship is an incredibly broad word. (Now somebody needs to troutwhack me for a most egregious pun.) ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree whole-heartedly with the original poster here and have removed the irrelevant pictures. ahpook (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a photo of a woman and man because there is no source indicating their relationship. They could be brother or sister or could be husband and wife. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you guys leave my unbolding of "wedlock" out of your edit war? It is very easy to only revert the change that you disagree with instead of bolding wedlock which per WP:BOLD should not be bolded since it very obviously redirects to marriage. Sjö (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures do not illustrate relationships

message: These terms are used in this page but corresponding relationship pages exist. Surely if they are listed as a type of relationship on a page then these relationships should have their own pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.111 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: exclusive, serious, committed or long-term relationship

message: This article lacks what is probably the most important information required for such articles: the history of the emergence of the term. When it was first used, when it was included to the dictionaries etc. Netrat (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Methods of attracting a partner to achieve girlfriend/boyfriend status are often varied and have been a topic of much discussion amongst both males and females, although methods and motives vary wildly.
This sentence seems out of place enough in intro as it is, without the dangerously-close-to-sexist cherry on top of linking "methods and motives vary wildly" to Gender differences. Laïka 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence