Talk:Friends/Archive 1

message: 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
#violet/riga (t)
#Neuropedia
#JP Godfrey
Allow the link
#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)
thread_title:  Trivia link survey 

message: *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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consider moving? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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
# Don't get too hung up about the Votes for Deletion page; the standard of debate can be quite low.
# 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)
# 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)
thread_title:  Is that cricket babe? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Also known as

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  template, but I do think it's relevant. violet/riga (t) 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Finale

message: 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)
thread_title: David Crane

message: 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)
thread_title: Joanna

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia: 55 people paid to watch 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed it. violet/riga (t) 01:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Friends trivia link 

message: * 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     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)
thread_title:   GA/FA Status To-do List 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Where is Central Perk? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Potential Additions to Running gags 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article is too long. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ratings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyvio! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Over or By Coffee shop 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Errors and Inconsistances 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Frank Jnr and the Condom Guy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spinoff? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Spinoff

message: 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)
replies: text: It's been a while, I removed the sentences. --Enano275 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th season intro statement? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Writers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing trivia 

message: Seems to be quite a trend on wikipedia now. Lovok 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added two Endspoiler templates:  - I hope that's better now. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Beginnings with no ends 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Long Article 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requested split

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Split section 'Errors and inconsistencies'

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey (I)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaning up Errors and inconsistencies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction Regarding Revival of Friends 

message: 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)
thread_title: Characters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spinoff! 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nom.  --musicpvm 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (II)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion