Talk:Friends/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deleted Info

A few month ago, I added a Inconsistency to it's area and I come back and the information is gone. Why would you leave it open for edit then delete competely true information. I would understand if it was something like "Ross is gay". But I put true information on the article which was deleted just because you dont want people changing things.

When you wrote this, did you see the note below the edit box that says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it? ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide broadcast

I've put all the info about broadcast of the show into a nice, simple table. I hope people will be happy about the idea of adding information about dubbing vs. subtitles. I think it is very interesting and important to know if people are/have been seeing the original version of the show or not. So I trust people from all countries will add some more information. The reason why I changed the heading from "Syndication" to "Worldwide broadcast" is simple. An encyclopedic article needs to provide information about the original broadcast of the show as well as current syndications. I'd be glad to hear some feedback and criticism so we can continue to improve the section. Tryggvia 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This page has been vandalised

I think this page needs to be locked ...

I quote:

"The show focused on the lives of a group of six friends: mummified, bitch tits "daddy's hoebag" Rachel Green; neurotically clean chef Monica Geller; pisses in the soup, shits in the creme broulette, farts on the pies masseuse and folk/acoustic slut singer-songwriter Phoebe Buffay; goes after men man and fuckin' retarded actor Joey Tribbiani; ass-cracking office cum dumpster Chandler Bing and butch cuntologist Rossi Geller. As the plot begins, Rachel has just left her fiancé Meg at the porn stage and moves in with her childhood lover, a creepy old man, Mike Kokazka.[2] The fuckers live across the dumpster from the old bag Chandler and retarded Joey and bang out with Monica's 2 year old lover, Ross – who recently raped his lesbian wife with a cucumber and some drano?![2] Then there is Phoebe - the "mummified douchebag" of the bunch (and the faggiest) and Monica's old dad.[3] The settings for the show include a sticky floor, two dogs humping, Ross's asshole, Phoebe's cunt and the local coffee house, Dildo Perk.[4]"

This is not a review and is deliberate vandalism.

80.76.243.123 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As you become more familiar with this site, you'll notice occasional vandalism such as this ranging from one word expletives to extensive graphic butchering of the entire page. It's quickly delt with however and even you can do this if you see it happen first. If you click the 'history' tab at the top of an article you'll be shown a list of changes made to it. Clicking on each link will show you how the article looked at the point that change was made. You need to find the version of the article before the vandalism took place. Once you have, click 'Edit this page' and, ignoring warnings to the contrary, save that page again by clicking 'Save Page' at the bottom. Hope this helps! ~~ Peteb16 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Friends article listed for deletion

Friends broadcast details has been listed for deletion (without good grounds, I may add). Please go to that page, follow the link to the deletion discussion, and vote oppose. Dan100 (Talk) 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Janice

Someone has moved Janice's article to Janice Litman Goralnik née Hosenstein which seems a bit cumbersome, and conflicts with the IMDB spelling anyway. Thoughts ? -- Beardo 08:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Preferably, it should be Janice (Friends). Previously, it was Janice (Friends character), but the distinction is not that important. -Anþony 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Joey's Full Name

As said by Phoebe in the episode where David comes back from Minsk, Joey's full name is 'Joseph Francis Tribiani', indicating that he does in fact have a middle name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.36.72 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Film Section

If it's been reported that there is not going to be a movie, why is the article there? 63.3.9.130 (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is only talk of a movie, but no definite answer about whether it will be made or not. I hope there is... it's a freaking great idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Running gags tone

The tone of this section is quite poor, as is the grammar/word choice. I'll work on it when I have time (no time with christmas less than 48 hours away). I added the {{tone}} template to the section to draw attention to the problem. 68.17.177.46 03:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it has a dedicated article, the section should simply be summarised. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that section used to be untouched. It's like trying to balance plates, this article, when one section is cut down, another expands with a lot of trivia. I think it's in need of a rewrite personally, which I think we should collaborate on. CloudNine 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added to this section on 3 occasions now about pheobes looks but it keeps getting deleted, I have been sent a message saying that it is innapropriate to the thread, but it is not in any way innapropriate? It is relevant to the section and it is a running gag, it happens on more than one occasion. Whoever it is deleting it can you please stop... thankyou :) the information i am adding is:

Quite often pheobie will be told that she looks nice and her usual reply is 'yeh I know' or 'thats neither here nor there'.

I agree (whoever you are). In addition, the original comment regarding the grammar and tone of this section is smack on - it reeks of fancruft and cetainly needs a good re-examination. Darth Doctrinus 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Product placement

If this section must be in the article then it needs to be better written and only actual product placement should be included (i.e. the Pottery Barn reference) rather than just passing references to existing products (many people have owned an N64 so why shouldn't the characters? Many people eat Toblerones, etc). I personally think this section is pointless and superficial but if it has to stay then clear references to the episodes that featured product placement needs to be made. 81.145.242.40 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to suggest that the show got payed money for putting these products in the episodes? I don't think there was any kind of product placement at all. I also think this section needs to be renamed or removed. Eenu (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rename it "List of times real-world products have been used as props because the producers want to create an air of authenticity (but with no clear reference to the episode in which said products appeared)"? That would be more appropriate. This is just a random list, an I-Spy guide to the props of the show and definitely not encyclopaedic. The Pottery Barn bit seems to be the anchor of this so-called "section" so why not delve into it? A simple Googling of "product placement friends pottery barn" turns up all sorts of things. This for example:

Yet, a moment later, hihi

a reporter asked how this was different from a recent "product placement" in "Friends," Roth said it wasn't the same thing at all, not at all.

Maybe you saw the episode in which Pottery Barn was mentioned repeatedly and, for the most part, flatteringly. Maybe you were struck, as I was, by the importance of a particular piece of Pottery Barn furniture to the plot.

Maybe you didn't know that the item -- much cooed-over by both Ross and Rachel in the episode -- is featured in the store's current catalog. And that, as Roth confirmed, his studio, Warner Bros. Television, was compensated for this very special guest appearance.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000201/ai_n10582843

There is at least one academic paper that refers to the Pottery Barn incident: Russel, CA "Investigating the Effectiveness of Product Placements in Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand Memory and Attitude" in JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. · Vol. 29 · December 2002. Have a look. WindsorFan 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Present tense in opening sentence

The bracketed comment about The West Wing is duly noted. But "Friends is a long-running sitcom" definitely makes it sound like it's still being made. You can have "Friends was a long-running sitcom" or "Friends is a sitcom", but the sentence as it stands now is just confusing. "Long-running" implies something that is continuing now, so the past tense is needed to clarify the issue. What does anyone else think about this? Martpol 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you just made me waste my time reading that. It's fixed. But, really, who cares? You don't need to spend that much time saying something we all already know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

Ok, it's time we cleaned up this article (as mentioned above). I'll be bold here. Sections, such as 'running gags', 'errors and inconsistencies', and 'references in other television series' (which really should be in their respective articles, or in a greatly reduced 'Popular Culture' section) dominate the article. We need a clear, trivia-free article, like The West Wing, that will be one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The link is:

Friends/Rewrite

Let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. CloudNine 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've discontinued the rewrite project. There wasn't any involvement, and the page was moved to my userspace; even though the Physics rewrite is still in main article space. CloudNine 09:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory Statement - which is right?

In the Friends Reunion section, it says they are getting together again for a series of four double-episodes, AND it says that Courtney Cox confirmed that that will never happen. Which is right?

And by the way, the reference to the Cox quote is obviously copied from an article. The reference to "Teusday" and the overall wording make that clear. Anyone care to rewrite? I would, but as pointed out above, I don't even know if it's true anymore, and deserves to be deleted... Nerrolken 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section. I think it was based off some internet rumour that got reported by the press....anyways, this was like a year ago, and nothing's been said since. Nevermind that Matthew Perry is in Studio 60 now, Courteney Cox is in some other series...etc. GrahameS 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really hang around this page much, so feel free to ignore this suggestion, but it does seem to me that a section discussing the return of Friends is necessary, if not just because so many people are thinking about it. It'll probably get added back anyway, and a lot of people, (myself included), come here to read about that specifically. So maybe there should be a section, just to satisfy the demand and keep people from posting more contradictory, if not patently false, information in the future? Anyway, like I said, just thinking out loud. Nerrolken 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am another person that surfs the Internet for ages trying to find out if there will be a Friends reunion. Most sources say there will be and some 'reliable' ones do, but there are a few which say there will not be. This needs to be confirmed in this article to make people's lives easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.209.149 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

References in other television series

I'd really like to delete the "References in other television series" section. It is obviously 100% OR and it adds nothing to the article. I think the article would be much better off without it. Protests? Pax:Vobiscum 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I added a trivia section - if it's deemed to be of interest, maybe it can be expanded. Vadimski 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a trivia section? That suggests there's information that can't be worked into the article, or is not of any note. Read WP:AVTRIV - trivia sections shouldn't be introducted into articles. CloudNine 11:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just a guideline. People can do as they please. A trivia section is a very good idea. Xanucia 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it but is there a compilation of the pictures on the "drawing board" that hangs on Joey's/Rachel's apartment door (starting from season 6 or 7 or so)? It changes with every episode but the camera never focuses long enough on it to discern anything. Thanks --Thewizzy 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an Etch A Sketch and it's present throughout the entire series. Random phrases and pictures appear on it that change every episode. It's a submliminal joke that is intended to wear out your video/DVD pause button, hence the camera never focuses on it. Many Friends episode articles document what is on the board in each episode, so this is the best place for this kind of trivia. Although I think it's significant enough to mention the Etch A Sketch once at some point within the article. ~~ Peteb16 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peteb16 --Thewizzy 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That thing is totally not an etch-a-sketch, it's a magna-doodle. An etch-a-sketch is completely different. -Anonymous

Article assessment

Nighthawkzx requested assessment of this article on 24 March 2007 here. As requested I have read the article and given assessment. These categories are arbritrary and are subject to review by any editor who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I'd like to explain my reasoning behind the assessment here.

I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.

1. Article is correctly named

Meets notability criteria (long running, high viewership, award winning)

2. Infobox is present and correct

3. Introduction is present but I think this section needs some work.

• I think the introduction is too soon to discuss alternative names that were considered for the show - perhaps this would be better placed in an origins section.
• The information about viewing statistics for the finale reads as contradictory - "the fourth most watched series finale" is a direct contradiction of "It is also the most watched series finale" this should be re-worded. Viewing statistics for the finale are very specific for the lead of the article - this information would be better placed in a section specifically discussing the finale. For the lead it is important to establish an overview of the viewer base - perhaps seek out an average viewing figure for reference in the ratings section.
• A brief overview of what to expect in the coming article is an important aim for the lead - there is already a mention of the broadcasters, awards and longevity but a summary sentence about the cast would help in this area.

4. Character is present and has the important information, however:

• The primary characters section is in list format. Instead summary style should be used with a brief mention of each of the main characters and a link to a character list. The tables should be farmed out to appropriate subarticles. Why are there three subarticles for character lists? The main article should link to a single comprehensive character list and this list can be subdivided into further lists if necessary.
• The table of secondary characters should also be replaced with a prose summary and moved to an appropriate list article.
• The secondary characters section lists some important guest stars but also includes a somewhat superfluous mention of crossover wth CSI. Is this notable? Can you cite a source that establishes a reason for this being notable? If not this paragraph should probably go.

5. There is no plot section. Try writing a paragraph summarising the story arc of each main character for each season. This section should act as a summary for a comprehensive list of episodes and further subarticles describing the plot of each season in more detail. If these article become overlong then articles for individual episodes might be considered.

6. You have a comprehensive episode listing in place here but the only link to it I found in the main article was in the footer template. This is a good episode list. It should have a pride of place see also link in the plot section.

7. There is a referenced cultural impact section in prose format. These are not easy sections to get going so well done for finding some sources. Keep an eye out for further ones as the article grows.

8. Critical reviews - there is no critical response section, check out metacritic and start summarising a cross-section of reviews from good sources.

9. Production notes - introduce a section about how the show is created. DVD making of documentaries are a good start. Who are the key cast members? How long does it take to film an episode? How long does it take to write an episode? Where are episodes filmed?

10. External links - present and correct

11. Categories - the article is in quite a lot of categories. Is their a nineties TV shows to match the noughties one?

You have some sections that make departures from the guideline also:

• Consider uniting the worldwide broadcasters and the NBC broadcast times section under broadcasters. The broadcasters list is long and detailed and may be overwhelming for a reader unfamiliar with the subject. I'd consider moving this into a subarticle. Perhaps unifying the broadcast and

• The ratings section is also very long and detailed. Perhaps this could be moved to a subarticle with a summary remaining.

• The running gag section is a long list. Lose the bullet points though and it is already a series of prose paragraphs. Some of the content in this article appears to be duplicated in the subarticle and as I said this is quite a long list. Perhaps try using shorter summaries of only the most long running/significant gags in the main article and put the bulk of the information in the subarticle.

• Similarly the product placement section is a long list. Is this notable information for wikipedia? Is it one of the most significant things about Friends? Are there any reliable sources that refer to product placement on friends? If the answer to any of these questions is no then this information should not be in the main article, and possibly does not belong on wikipedia. If the information is important then it needs to be presented in a prose format and once again either cut down or moved to a subarticle with a summary remaining.

• Awards and nominations is also a list format. This should come under the banner of critical response and should be in prose. Friends has one quite a few awards so I would once again consider a summary of the most notable with a subarticle. Some of the less famous awards appear to be missing from the current list.

• Errors and inconsistencies - this should be brought under the banner of production notes and the more specific information relating to specific characters and episodes should be moved to those articles. For the main article it is sufficient to note that inconsistencies exist in certain areas and link to the articles that illustrate this in greater depth. This section requires some references.

• Merchandise - add some reviews of the notable merchandise to extablish it's significance. The episode list is a good place to list specific DVDs and a comprehensive record of their special features. The list of features here in the main article seems superfluous.

• Spinoff - a well done section with about the right amount of info. The rumours about the other spinoff need to be cited or excised. A see also for Joey is appropriate at the start of the section to highlight the existence of a separate article for the spinoff.

The article is a good start. However some important information is missing and there is a lot of editing still to do. Friends was a major TV show and is very well known hence the "high" importance rating. The article here is a "start" towards the kind of information I would like to see about the show. My 3 major recommendations are:

1. Start plot and critical response sections.
2. Convert the lists in the article into prose or move them into separate lsit articles
3. Move the specific detail out to appropriate subarticles and get only the key information in the main article.

Hope this is of some use.--Opark 77 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Black woman (Whose name escapes me at present)

There seems to be no mention of the black woman doctor who was also a palaentologist. She dated Ross, then Joey, then Ross again, when Joey was dating Rachel. She appeared in a good few episodes. Does she not deserve a mention in the article?SmokeyTheCat 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The character you refer to is Charlie and she's mentioned at least three times in the article within the season synopses for Seasons 9 and 10. Also she only dated Ross once. ~~ Peteb16 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Diversity Issues

Perhaps something about the controversies surrounding Friends (particularly in the early seasons) complete lack of minority characters. I remember this being somewhat of a big issue at one point. At the very least this story should be mentioned. I don't remember what ever came of the suit. --Wolfrider 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this should be expanded. There was a strong xenophobic undertone to the series. The storylines always promoted failed relationships with foreigners. (Eg Ross failed giirlfriends : The Englishwoman & the chinese girl.) Also considering the storyline was set in the most multculture city on the planet New York the characters came across has insular and isolationist. And to top it off the guy who worked in Central perk was called Gunther. A germanic name giving echoes of Nazi propaganda. --Redblossom 09:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"A germanic name giving echoes of Nazi propaganda"

That's rather an outrageous thing to say. Just because someone happens to have a German name? What is it you're saying about everyone from Germany then?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, The 'chinese girl' was American. His ex-wife Carol is American. There are plently other American girls he had failed relationships with. I can kidna see your point, as early on most of the characters had failed relationships with foreigners. The only person (off the top of my head) I can think who didn't date a foreigner is Chandler. But I doubt there was anything deliberate about it. I have no idea how you connect Gunther and Nazi propaganda, seems you have an agenda.. The Muss (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Chandler dated foregniers. For example, in The one with the Butt, there is that excotic woman that chandler dates. It later fails. Also in The one with the Football, the Hollandish woman says that she likes Chandler. However chandler never actually dates this women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.29.15 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Death of the Chick & the Duck

This does not make sense. The last part 'when they were last seen' implies that they were alive in season seven, when it has already been stated that they died in season four. Which is correct? I do not think they died in season four. Mthastings25 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember them dying in S4 either. --Wolfrider 23:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think they die in S4, cause ive got S 1-4 and i dont remember that.

The duck swallowed Ross' wedding ring (or Emily's) and has an operation to have it removed, but survives. (Phoebe was meant to feed them while the rest were in London.) I don't recall how the are written out, but it is implied that they died at some point as everyone seems to have made Joey think that they'd gone to a farm. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the 'farm' makes me recall the episode where Ross finds out that 'Chi Chi' (his dog) actually died when he was a young boy, and was not sent to the 'Vermont's Farm' at all. I think I have that name right? Perhaps this was a way of telling the viewers that Chick and Duck had in fact died as well? Darth Doctrinus 10:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The animals in the last episode were different. They had just been bought by Joey as a gift to Chandler and Monica --Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When Joey buys a new Chick and Duck in the penultimate episode, there's a reference in a conversation between him and Phoebe to the original chick and duck having gone to a 'farm' (and people aren't allowed to visit). It doesn't indicate when they went there, though.Ephrathah (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide broadcast

Do we need to have this section in the exact article? Eugrus 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

The criticism section contains what are merely opinions but read too much like factual statements (I've made a wording change to try to fix this), and is completely without citations. Definitely a low point for the article. --Hiraeth 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added by an anon user earlier today. I nearly reverted it on sight, but decided to wait to see if any citations would be added. I'd recommend removing it. - auburnpilot talk 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Friends is not different than any other programme thats on wikipedia. I saw nothing in the section that i havent heard tons of people say. It just needs citations thats all. --ISeeDeadPixels 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's wrong not to have a criticism section. Every other show/movie on wikipedia does. All I can think is that the rabid Friends fans must be blocking attempts to add one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.55.243 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

External link

The link to: http://www.triviad.com/quiz/tv/friends.html continues to be removed from the external links list. It is not a fan site, and it meets the wiki guidelines:

"What Should be Linked: ...Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

The site provides trivia questions not otherwise found on the wikipedia.org friend's page, relevant content that typically will not be found elsewhere.

Please comment as to whether the site is either an acceptable or not an acceptable external link, and why.

Thank you.

Viewing figures

The introduction to the article states the final episode had one of the highest viewing figures in the U.S. Perhaps a link or something would be useful as the final episode does not list the viewing figures (and I can't find any figures). Riksweeney 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

David Crane

In the introduction section, David Crane is credited as the co-creator of the series, whilst a little later he is refferred to as David Crane Arquette, which I am fairly sure is wrong. Just after Courteny Cox married David Arquette, they played a joke on her and put Arquette after every name in the credits of one episode, which might account for the mistake. 202.139.111.249 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Article sources

This article is seriously lacking in sources; I can count a total of 3 listed at the bottom. I've removed the "running gags" as it was seriously long, unsourced, and completely duplicated in the subarticle. Please do not revert this unless sources can be added or duplicate material is removed from the subarticle. Think summary. - auburnpilot talk 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

I'm sure some of you are aware of the discussions about the forthcoming merging of episode articles. I reckon if they get their way, the majority of Friends episodes will simply be redirected to this parent article. Episode articles need to have referenced 'real world' information. Articles don't need to be perfect: you can add a short production section, with a reference to an audio commentary or a book. Otherwise, the articles will go. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this discussion? Apparently I've missed it, as usual. - auburnpilot talk 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion's been hidden away on Wikipedia:Television episodes, amongst certain other places. It's been quite heated, and appeared on WP:ANI at one point when one particular editor began redirecting episodes. The template {{Episode-notability}} (or {{Dated episode notability}}) is about to start appearing, which will give editors some notice before an article is merged. I reckon once it gets going, User:TTN is going to flood the place with this. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's started [1] Remember that these guys are evoking a self-produced guidelines, not policy. The articles are not being deleted: they are still accessible through history. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Production isn't something that establishes notability. The real world impact is what establishes notability. Check out the reception sections for the FA episode articles, and you'll get an idea of what needs to be done. BTW, the "self produced guideline" is nothing of the sort. WP:EPISODE has been a guideline for awhile, the only thing that is new is a proposed guideline for a review process that will give people fair warning of possible redirects, if notability is not established. Just because you do not agree with a guideline that has been in place, but never followed, does not mean it still isn't valid. Obviously enough people agreed originally to make it one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what a GA and FA episode article is. I've actually spent time getting some to that standard. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion that a couple of mere journalists can make something notable. Bignole, here's a challenge for you: pick an episode that you feel doesn't meet the guidelines, and improve it until it does. It shouldn't take much time: articles don't have to be GA or FA. That will give us a very good model, because at the moment I feel that the deletionists will be narrowing the goal posts. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you do, and I know you have, I wasn't directing that comment specifically at you. I've seen the work you do on a lot of film articles and I respect it because it's good work. Um, in case you haven't noticed from my page, I got Aquaman (TV program) to FA status, and if you look at Pilot (Smallville), I'm pretty much the only person that has worked on that entire article. Go back to before you see a big chunk of my name, and see what that page used to look like. I'm not a stranger to working on these articles either, but I know the difference between what makes and article notable and what doesn't (not a put down to you, so please do not take it that way). Look at the pilot that I worked on, and compare that with every other Smallville article. Now, look at User:Bignole/Smallville seasons, this is where I'm developing a new season format where you can work limited production information on individual episodes into a more consise production information for an entire season (I have several episodes with absolutely no usable information, only stuff that would go on a Wikia). Why? Because you are more likely to find reception, Nielsen ratings, award nominations for seasons as a whole. You may have 1 nomination for episode 5 of a show, but what does that mean? It means you'd write "Episode Blah was nominated for a ___ award". Ok, I did that in one line, how does that justify a 500 word plot? Now, in a season page, you can talk about how this season was nominated for several awards. Nielsen ratings are kind of hard to find for individual episodes, and sometimes the links to that particular week (if it's current) will disappear when the new week starts. Finding a log of how a show performed through the entire season, compared to other shows is sometimes easier (depends on the show, no two shows are created equal). You are also more likely to find critical response to seasons than to individual episodes, because there are far too many television shows for critics to watch everything. Key episodes get special treatment, not filler episodes in the middle of the season, unless you are looking at a fansite which has a personal critic that writes a review for every episode (Kryptonsite has "Triplett" who actually does it for a living, but I have issue with citing someone that uses a psuedonym). USA Today's Bianco often, in this little Q&A with fans, tells people that he is behind, sometimes several seasons behind, on watching a particular show. A "couple of journalist" prove that the show has in some way impacted cultural, because professionals are talking about it. There are clear "almost instant notable" episodes, like the "Trapped in the Closet" episode of South Park, but again, that garnered a lot of outside criticism/praise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Friends episodes

The category appears to be organised in chronological order. Since the List of episodes sorts it in that way, shouldn't the cat be alphabetical? I'd propose using the phrase directly following "The One Where/When...", with common sense being used on some occasions. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've recategorised some of the episodes based on your suggestion, alphabetising the important word in the title (e.g. "Embryos, The One with the") so we don't end up with a category made up entirely of "T". The only ones I've done are the ones that are already notable and the ones that need some clearing up to assert it. Feel free to add some more if you see some I've missed out. Brad 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT - Notability Concerns and Redirects for Individual Episodes

Wikipedia has a clear guideline on creating articles for individual series episodes, which should be consulted at WP:EPISODES and which states It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. As a guideline, the terms it lays out should be generally followed in the creation of individual episode articles. Plot summaries, goofs, and trivia are explicitly cited as both unencyclopedic and not-recommended content for individual episode articles. If you wish to write individual articles for episodes of this series, it is a good idea to ensure that the content meets the criteria laid out at the Episode Guideline. Otherwise, individual episode articles should redirect to the list of episodes article. I have listed most of the first season episodes for such a review. I have also rewritten this episode to conform with the notability standard laid out at the guideline.

The episode review can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review. Note that per the Episode Guideline, out-of-universe notability is not met simply by listing actors, nor by establishing content that uses the series itself as a frame of reference (e.g. continuity, character trivia, etc...). Thanks. Eusebeus 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is in your opening sentence. This is not policy. It is a guideline. The review process is recently created by a handful of editors, and, worryingly, looks like it will be judged by the same. Can you provide constructive feedback of the minimum that would be required? The minimum. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right and I apologise for the sloppy wording (edited it above). It is, nonetheless, recommended that editors follow the criteria laid out there. I have provided a rewrite of an episode that I feel attains sufficient notability for its own article. In this case (The One After the Superbowl, Part One), it was:

• The most watched episode of the series
• Produced a spin-off show
• Won an Emmy award.

This trifecta means the episode clearly passes out-of-universe notability standards. In fact, any one of these would likely be sufficient for a stand-alone article. Issues like:

• taking on important topics that garnered notable media attention,
• an unusual ratings achievement,
• an episode-specific, notable award (as, in this case, an Emmy)

are the kinds of things that would pass the Episode guideline. I don't wish to be presumptuous - I am not the arbiter of what is notable. But that is my reading of the guideline and why I think the article review process is important to have so other editors can weigh in. Eusebeus 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the review process is (should be) supposed to be alerted on all the relevant pages of that episode (i.e. episode talk, LOE talk (or season if that is where it might be merged), and the main article talk). This is not so you can sit in the backseat and watch as we tear apart an episode. This is so anyone and everyone can join in. The 14 days is to let you know the review is coming. If you get the article up to snuff before than, great...the review will simply go "this article's fine, let's move on." If you can't, but you join in the review then you might just find helpful hints at what needs to be found. The great thing about merging and redirecting is that nothing is lost and can be easily reopened when the time is right. Matthew cited WP:DEADLINE (an essay) during is march to delete our reviewing tool, which I find appropriate here. There is not a deadline to create an episode. If a show is notable then it always will be, but if there is no verifiable, reliable proof of notability then it shouldn't be created in the hopes that one day it will be notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

JPS, I am offended by your comment that "the review process is recently created by a handful of editors, and, worryingly, looks like it will be judged by the same". The whole process has been open for all to contribute, and we continue to invite comment from others, and many have joined in the collaboration at various stages in the process, and not all from the same place. This review project is not run by some cabal or club of editors, neither is it the consensus of a few yes-men. The discussion was initiated following a heated debate at AN/I by people from all 'sides', in an effort to find middle ground. The discussion was 'advertised' at ANI, the Village Pump, and at all the television WikiProjects inviting contributions from all. Consensus was reached, and the review process proposed, and is now being trialled. You, as anyone else, is more than welcome to contribute or offer suggestions at WP:TV-REVIEW. On the subject of WP:EPISODE, if you have a problem with the notability requirements, then I suggest you comment there, as well as its parent notability pages: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Gwinva 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Appartments

Does anyone else think that there should be seperate articles for the 'friends' appartments. i think that there was once but they got deleated for some reason but i can't find them in the history pages.

Monica Geller

I've just removed the "-Bing" from Monica's name so it falls in line with the Monica Geller article ... and the truth! Lol! If anyone needs more reason why, look at the talk page of the Monica Geller article! --LookingYourBest 10:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

notice of episode article review

The individual episode articles for Friends (season one) are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of Friends episodes#Episode article review (Season 1). Thanks. -- Jack Merridew 11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Does anyone have a subscription to the NY Times archive? I've found several articles from early 1994 that chart the development of the series, including casting Joey, taping the pilot and getting the series. These would be incredibly useful for getting this article out of start class. Brad 11:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll just link the abstracts here for when people tire of trivia. [2][3][4] Brad 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Friends Fountain

Can I just ask, is the fountain ever shown anywhere but in the opening credits? LookingYourBest 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Darth Doctrinus 10:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reason?

Article does not tell why the show has been cancelled/ended. --88.106.121.79 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?

Is "central perk" vanalism of "central park"? I didn't watch the series, so I don't know... It might have actually been called "central perk" in the series... It isn't just a typo because it occurs several times throughout the artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.16.178 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The coffee shop is actually named "Central Perk" in the series, and is a play on the name "Central Park". I believe the "perk" also comes from the word percolate: "To make (coffee) in a percolator." - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Articles for Deletion

An episode page, The One After Joey and Rachel Kiss has been nominated for AfD, as a test case in removing all individual episode summary articles. The AfD page is: [[5]]Moheroy 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about removing all episode articles -- as far as I'm concerned it just relates to Friends articles that have no third-party sources that say anything of note beyond rehashing the plot. Brad 08:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to big a notable policy change, and it should at least be mentioned in a less obscure place than a single episode. If this article is deleted it will be the basis for huge numbers of future piece meal deletions without any open discussion of the issue. This is why I posted this comment here. Moheroy 08:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy change. WP:N has existed for a long time. There are Friends episode articles for which there are simply no sources whatsoever -- not even a single review of an episode (from a reputable source). Such articles can never expand beyond a plot summary, making them superfluous to List of Friends episodes. Believe me, I've searched long and hard for secondary sources! Assuming the AFD for this episode succeeds, I'll be listing other articles that have no chance of ever expanding for deletion. Any article that has even the slightest secondary sources I will leave. I don't care for the fake guidelines laid out at WP:EPISODE but WP:N is something that every corner of Wikipedia (television, biography, science...) must abide by. Brad (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Significant Others on Friends

That article was deleted, but now I actually need the information. I asked at the help desk, and I was told to contact the administrator who deleted the article, but now I cannot find him/her. I decided to ask here, since the people here would be most likely to know. Thanks for helping :-) Mhavril39 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com has a mirror of the list here. Will you be incorporating the recurring characters to the recurring characters list? Brad (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I also need this for an unrelated reason that I will be working on first, but will be happy to incorporate these people to the recurring characters list once I am finished Mhavril39 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things needs to be addressed.

Although compare to Seinfeld, I'm not really familiar with Friends and there's very little room to figure what make those shows different to Seinfeld. It would be nice if there's an overview explaining what type of show I'm watching. The other thing is the music. Apart from the title music, do they have other music that made it on the show or not? That's the other thing I wanted someone to address. If you resolve these two criterias, maybe I'll resolve the confusion in this wikipedia world.

Johnnyauau2000 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

komokwa is an Award]]-winning warrior english runescape player about a group called the hood world 68 that was originally a group of outlows from 1991 to 2007. It was created by [[an unknown person ], and produced by unknown,

SPAM

The show also popularized the idea of the "laminated list", a list of celebrities that a person's partner will permit them to sleep with if they were to ever meet them. In "The One with Frank Jr." the characters exchange "lists" verbally, while Ross creates a physical list and laminates it, making his choices permanent. The concept of the laminated list has been adopted by the Hollywood Stock Exchange website.[18]

In 2006 Iranian businessman Mojtaba Asadian started a "Central Perk" franchise, registering the name in 32 countries. The décor of his coffee houses are inspired by that in Friends. James Michael Tyler attended the grand opening of the flagship Dubai café and is the spokesman for the company.[19]

Cultural Impact?

The phrase "Ross and Rachel" has appeared as a joke in Scrubs: the janitor describes J.D.'s relationship with Elliot as "not exactly Ross and Rachel." After a pause, the "Ross and Rachel" in question is revealed to be two other employees in the hospital, "Dr. Ross, and Rachel from book keeping," and the offscreen shots. Friends has been referenced again in the Scrubs episode, "My Cold Shower"; Carla describes J.D and Elliot's relationship as being, "On and off more than Ross and Rachel, from Friends", J.D then explains how he is nothing like Ross and in Doctor Cox's tradition of calling J.D girl's names, he tells J.D he's more like Rachel.

So it appearing in Scrubs is considered Cultural Impact? Or affecting another Hollywood writer, who may even be connected with the show? No. This is NOT cultural impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.136.155 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In find this ANNOYING: Friends has made a notable contribution to some areas of popular culture - in particular, language and fashion. The use of "so" to mean "very" or "really" was not invented by any Friends writer, but it is arguable that the extensive use of the phrase in the series encouraged its use in everyday life (others assert that the use of "so" on Friends as an "unconditional" in the sense of "absolutely" ["You are so moving"; "You are so dead"], supplanting its 80s counterpart "totally," was much more influential than "so" in the sense of "very," which was firmly established in the vernacular long before Friends)."

Kylie Mole in The Comedy Company was saying "so excellent" in 1988. And that phrase was old then! She also released a song with the title "So Excellent". Melbn (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

One of Phoebe's songs, "Smelly Cat", became popular enough to be adopted by a group of Portuguese comedians claiming to be fans of Friends, who named their show "Gato Fedorento" (Portuguese for "smelly cat"). This choice of name was the probably the basis for their statement that they 'often steal ideas from American comedians'. The cat (normally drawn with smell lines) has become Gato Fedorento's mascot, and the four comedians are usually known as "the smelly cats" or simply "the cats". One of the comedians, José Diogo Quintela, has stated that he thought "smelly cat" meant "cranky chair" in English, and some fans still call the show Cadeira Rançosa (cranky chair).

What comedians? Famous ones? Maybe this is useful info for the Portuguese Wikipedia, but it's worthless here. Looks suspiciously like spam to promote the comedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.136.155 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

including the now-defunct "Phoenix Perk" in Dublin (named for the park in the city).

What does Ireland have to do with Friends? This "article is a total MESS. 100% Wikiality.

Filming place

Where was Friends filmed? New York or Los Angeles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.90.51 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Primarily New York. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it was filmed in Burbank, California. - auburnpilot talk 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I belive so to, becuse on the Letterman show in 2002 David Schwimmer said he was wisiting in New York... Does anyone have any sources on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.86.212 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The show was filmed in Burbank, California, at Warner Bros. Studios. Just to clear this up --SamB135 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [6]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

UK Ratings

Need citations as it was well recieved up until season three. SKY One bit wants work and a correct timeline for when Channel 4 got it back along with E4 re-runs. Also VHS sales may be worth looking into for this time period, to show relative popularity, getting hold of these sources may be tricky though. Londo06 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't add up

the number of viewers tuning in is different than the number on the main page of Friends--Baitt (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Storyline Section Removal

Before removing this section, maybe any problems such as lack of citations or whatever could be addressed instead. Suggestions or comments? UB65 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Delete Delete

This is so the worst sentence in the history of the universe.

"Friends has made a notable contribution to some areas of popular culture - in particular, language and fashion. The use of "so" to mean "very" or "really" was not invented by any Friends writer, but it is arguable that the extensive use of the phrase in the series encouraged its use in everyday life[17] (others assert that the use of "so" on Friends as an "unconditional" in the sense of "absolutely" ["You are so moving"; "You are so dead"], supplanting its 80s counterpart "totally," was much more influential than "so" in the sense of "very," which was firmly established in the vernacular long before Friends)."

In the words of Darth Vader - 'Noooooooo!'

See [Impact]. And it was Luke who said that. 202.169.183.165 (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

--Solicitor1 (Solicitor1) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes

In the main Friends infobox, it lists 236 as the number of episodes. On the List of Friends episodes page, it says 237 in the intro, has a season list that adds up to 235, and then has every episode listed ending with 238. The full list on TV.com shows 239. I know that double episodes are usually counted as two, and that retrospectives aren't technically real episodes, but some sort of consensus needs to be found, for both this main show page and the episode list page. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this so that all figures now add up to 238. The extra episode in TV.com is an outtakes special (no 161 on their list) which didn't seem appropriate to include on the Wikipedia list Ephrathah (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing flat number on Monica's door

Through series 1 the flat numbers on Monica's and Chandler's doors seem to keep changing. In some episdoes they are 4 and 5, while in others they are 19 and 20. Does anyone know the reason for this? Ephrathah (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Monica's apartment had been shown to be fairly high up in the building and so the numbers were changed. If they stayed four and five, the apartments would have had to be at the bottom of the building. Futuremyst (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. JayJ47 (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

It is unacceptable for the nominator to carry out the review, and so I have delisted this article and restored its GA nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   According to the here, the lead does need a bit of expansion; to neutralize and summarize the article's subject. The Cast paragraph, I find hard to read, as it explains the actors time before getting involved with Friends, a good example to have the article formatted is Heroes. In the Storylines and format paragraph, it would be best to link the six characters, as to what the article is referring to.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are not sufficient to cover the material in the Cast section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Is section 3 really neutral? In the Cultural impact, the third and fifth paragraph do need sourcing. The awards and nominations do need a source. The entire section of the Australian and New Zealand ratings, need a source to make sure the article does not go off detail; As well as both the British and Irish ratings and Merchandise. References 9 and 10 are lacking publisher information.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article reads well, the only thing holding the article is if these comments can be met. Once they are completed, the article would be turned into a Good article. Good luck and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have failed the article due to the compliance of the date we are in, as I gave the review on May 1st and failing the article on May 12. The article lacks of some mere topics, it would be best to first complete the to-do list and then re-nominate the article to the Good article nomination page. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is/was

Friends "is" and will always be "an American sitcom about a group of friends in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan, New York City" (from the lead). The fact that the show is no longer produced is completely and utterly irrelevant to this point, just as we wouldn't change To Kill a Mockingbird to read "To Kill a Mockingbird was a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Harper Lee published in 1960" (or Iliad to read "The Iliad was one of two ancient Greek epic poems traditionally attributed to Homer"). This is often referred to as the literary or historical present tense. This applies to works of fiction, whether it is a television show, movie, poem, novel, or other literary work, as the work always exists in the present regardless of when it was created or if it ceases production. - auburnpilot talk 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.--intraining ^{Jack In} 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is about a group of friends in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan, New York City, however I could see how people would disagree with your point. Even in normal conversation (as oddly enough it happened today for me), we would say "Friends was a sitcom shown back in the late 90's" instead of "Friends is a sitcom shown in the late 1990's". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.65.245 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Viewer demographics

Does anybody know if there's information on the gender split among viewers? WilyD 17:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast in how many countries?

The article used to say that "the show has been broadcast in more than one hundred countries", but after I asked for a reference it now only says "The show has been broadcast in dozens of countries". Does anyone know the actual number? Note that the reference currently used does not include all countries of broadcast, e.g. this source lists at least a few more. Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Bright

I'd like to clear an issue with Kevin Bright. This page does not list him as a creator of the series; however, I have seen a few sources which do, e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4899445/ -- "Kevin Bright, Marta Kauffman and David Crane created "Friends" at...." Is there an official ref which shows him not to be a creator? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You want a ref that lists a negative? Something that says "Friends was created by Marta Kaufmann and David Crane but NOT Kevin bright." That's gonna be tough to find. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, just one that explicitly mention Crane and Kauffman, but not Bright. Of course, I have seen several with Bright, and several without him, which is why I came here to ask the question. A more constructive answer next time would be more appreciated. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was confused by your question. I think the most authoritative site would be IMDB, which lists Kauffman and Crane as creators, but Bright as Exec Producer and Director. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but IMDb is user-edited. Thanks though, and I'll keep looking. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Revamp

Hey there. You may have noticed the rework I performed on the page, which has hopefully made it better. :) I'm going to nominate it for GA, but the page still needs additional refs for the ratings. Unfortunately, these are hard to find, but any additions of reliable sources would be great. Also, I'd like to thank User talk:Bradley0110 for his help. Anyways, enjoy! Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! I noticed this page in your sandbox and I copied some of it to The Last One (Friends episode) for now (I hope you don't mind). I'm planning on getting it to GA status pretty soon. Any help would be nice. :) TheLeftorium 09:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'll try help out asap. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Pilot (Friends)/archive1

The article for The Pilot (Friends) is now on peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Pilot (Friends)/archive1. Please add comments. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast salary

Does anyone know how much the cast was paid per episode for the first season? MSNBC says it was 22,000 per episode, while BBC News says it was only 1,600. Any thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go with the BBC source but if two reliable sources are conflicting then the article should say that. But I can't believe that the WB would pay five nobodies and one almost-somebody $22,000 an episode for a show that might not have made it past a season. Bradley0110 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have no idea. Both figures sound too extreme in either direction; are there any other sources out there? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LA Times says $22,500 per actor per ep for S1, and $40,000 in S2. Bradley0110 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's good info. Does it says the amount was "reported", or does it say it in a more definitive manner? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only see what's in the Google News snippet, but part of it says "The program's stars [...] were initially said to be asking for more than $100,000 per episode each, a significant increase over the $40,000 they made last season" in reference to contract negs for S3, then it says "The "Friends" stars made $22500 each per episode during the first season". Bradley0110 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And the NY Times states that some salaries were $20k in S2 and "others were considerably higher", which throws a spanner into the whole "we always stuck together" business. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, here's what the salaries look like, per [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11].

Actor	Season 1	Season 2	Season 3	Season 4	Season 5	Season 6	Season 7	Season 8	Season 9	Season 10
JA	22,500	30,000-40,000	75,000	85,000	100,000	120,000	750,000		$1m
CC	22,500	30,000-40,000	75,000	85,000	100,000	120,000	750,000		$1m
LK	22,500	30,000-40,000	75,000	85,000	100,000	120,000	750,000		$1m
ML	22,500	30,000-40,000	75,000	85,000	100,000	120,000	750,000		$1m
MP	22,500	30,000-40,000	75,000	85,000	100,000	120,000	750,000		$1m
DS	22,500	30,000-40,000	75,000	85,000	100,000	120,000	750,000		$1m (all figs per ep)

Entertainment Weekly implies, but doesn't explicitly state, that Cox, Aniston and Schwimmer were at the upper end of the salary scale for S2. From S5 onwards, they also got a cut of the syndication revenue. S1-5 were part of their original contracts, then S6 was added during the S4 negotiations. S7 and 8 were added after the S6 finale was filmed, S9 was added shortly before the end of S8, and S10 was added shortly before the end of S9. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm busy now, but I'll definitely start incorporating this info into the article later. If you have time, please just add it in yourself. Either way, thanks. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've finally gone over and updated the cast salaries. Please go over and check if there is still anything left out or incorrect. Oh, and which reference states that they received a cut of the syndication revenue from season five? I wanted to put that in, but couldn't find/read the ref. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that we were talking about this at all (ahem). This NYT source states that they got syndication royalties though it doesn't explictly state it was from season 5. However, it must have been S5, since syndication packages are sold once a series reaches 100 eps. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the info. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct Title??

Shouldnt the name of the title be "F·r·i·e·n·d·s" as in its posters, opening credits and now on imdb too?? --Anant Singh (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No; Friends is the title. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

well, i dont think so that u jus sayin that friends is the title changes much?? the opening credit of the serial says F·R·I·E·N·D·S (u can check the screenshot in the infobox), the official dvd says F·R·I·E·N·D·S, and imdb too says F·r·i·e·n·d·s. Now, m i not repeating myself here?? Kindly note that my point is quite valid and just shruggin it off by saying "No; Friends is the title" without any valid points doesnt make any sense...--Anant Singh (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

oh...and the official website listed on the wikipedia page too says F·R·I·E·N·D·S and nowhere does it say Friends. --Anant Singh (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed blunt. F·R·I·E·N·D·S is just the stylized version of Friends, so we do not use it as the official title. WALL-E, which was written as WALL•E in posters, does not use the stylized version either. Hope this helps. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Establishing shots - Shooting locations

Hey guys, what about a new little section about the location of the establishing shot at New York City ? Some buildings like the Solow Building (where Chandler works),the Greenwich village building, the location of the few New York large shots seen from outside Manhattan .. All this informations will be interesting to this article ! (or maybe create a secondary article for that) --Kakihara2046 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

With reliable sources, this info could probably be inserted into the filming section. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this show a spin-off?

This show shares a mutual character with "Mad About You", which premiered much earlier. Is Friends a spin-off because of recurring Ursula Buffet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Mad About You and Friends were created by different people (Paul Reiser, and Marta Kauffman & David Crane) completely separately of each other. However, because Lisa Kudrow was already appearing irregularly in Mad About You, a group of NBC executives thought viewers would be "confused" over why the actress was appearing in two shows as two different characters, so asked Kauffman and Crane to come up with an explanation (beyond "She's an actress in two fictional TV shows and audiences aren't stupid), hence "The One with Two Parts". Bradley0110 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration on Friends (TV Show) Seasons

I'd like to propose working on articles for the 10 seasons of Friends. Friends is one of the best television series for the past decades and deserves good season articles. Is someone interested in collaborating on that? Till now from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television there is User:Theleftorium, User:Matthewedwards and me.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Ironic

I removed the word "ironically" from the season 5 synopsis (i.e. "Phoebe gave birth to triplets, ironically, in the show's 100th episode.") This is not ironic. According to Webster's Dictionary, irony is, "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result." 24.1.30.186 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)energyturtle

Character articles

The character articles for Friends are in horrible shape. They are almost completely unreferenced (discounting references to episodes), too detailed, and filled with fanboy nonsense that nobody particularly cares about. Rachel Green is likely the most offensive of the 6 articles in terms of quality and general feeling of a fan site article. Is anybody going to be particularly horrified if I redirect the articles to this article? If there are objections, I hope those objecting are willing to work on the character articles. --auburnpilot talk 02:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the best idea, but I can certainly see where you are coming from. They are horrible pages, but they definitely could be fixed up. On a less controversial note, how about deleting/redirecting List of awards and nominations received by Friends? All the awards The main/notable awards are sourced on the main page, why have that extra useless page? I say redirect it. Also, I have no idea what List of Friends guest stars is for. Completely unreferenced and just horrible. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This might be an opportunity to clean up the character articles and related lists once and for all; redirect and merge the useful info from the main character articles (haha) into a new Characters of Friends article, clean-up List of recurring characters in Friends, and move List of Friends guest stars to List of minor characters in Friends. Remember the "List of Friends boyfriends and girlfriends" list that got deleted a couple of years ago? That had a lot of info that should have been merged with the recurring characters page. As for the awards page, I'd prefer to see that stay, and the awards section in the main article just used to talk about important awards that were won. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating a new Characters of Friends article. That page could have all the main and recurring characters. I think List of Friends guest stars should just be deleted flat out. Those guest stars are just trivial and add nothing to this encyclopedia. The awards page is completely unreferenced, but that's for another day, I guess. Right now, would you agree with redirecting the guest stars page? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that List of Friends guest stars shouldn't exist. Unlike The Simpsons, this show isn't famous because of its guest stars. A Characters of Friends article sounds good, too. TheLeftorium 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll start on that now. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created Characters of Friends, although it's very rough. I think removing the infoboxes for each character would improve the page. Any other suggestions? I also redirected List of Friends guest stars. I probably should've waited for a proper consensus, but I hardly see why anyone would want to keep it in its current state. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd lose the iboxes. They're only really useful in single-subject articles and make lists look untidy. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, looks much better. So, what do we think is the future on the character page? I'm not really interested in developing it much further, and I doubt anyone else is. I think as long as it's neat and void of cruft, it's fine for me. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the way its laid out. I'll throw something together now to show how I'd prefer it to look. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The One with the Embryos

Since before the dawn of time the trivia contest facts have been added and removed from the The One with the Embryos article. I personally believe they are too trivial to list in the article, which is already bordering on notability as it is. What does everyone else think? Bradley0110 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. They're just useless trivia, which should be avoided. Theleftorium 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

KEEP IT as it's the essence of the episode. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Central Perk merge proposal

• I propose to merge Central Perk here. It's a totally pointless in universe article with only three references, two simply asserting it existed, and a third saying where it was based on. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge as nom. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're voting on your own nomination? Odd. --Captain Infinity (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It;s just a procedural thing I've seen others do. Certainly nothing odd about it. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting, informative, well-written article. There's no reason to destroy this information. --Captain Infinity (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I could think of plenty. It would most likely not survive a deletion nomination unless massively rewritten. If it were nominated for example, you rationale above would pretty much come under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. But I'm not proposing deletion at all, just a mergeing of a non-notable subject into the article it belongs, which is not a 'destruction' in any sense. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect. I merged all of the worthwhile information from the CP article over 18 months ago. There is nothing important left to merge (it is, after all, just a set in a television series). Bradley0110 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect, although I only want to see very little of it on this page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect. Since Central Perk was one of the major grounding forces of Friends, its topic should at least be discussed on the Friends page. Maybe we can put a little section dedicated to Central Perk, say maybe after mentioning the cast.abasu89 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2009
  • Well, half of the cultural impact section is already about Central Perk, and that actually is real-world info. I don't really see a reason to go into the details of what happens in Central Perk in the show. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect. it should be discussed on the main article, but there are no reasons for a separate article.--camr ^nag 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect. The CP article is pointless since anything worth mentioning in it could be covered on the main Friends page. At present there is very little in the CP article worth saving, and, because it is merely a set from a tv show, nothing could be done to change this. --86.164.34.48 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the general consensus is that a redirect is the best option, I have gone ahead and done so. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New DVD's

There is supposed to be a new set of DVD's due out, based on the characters. The episodes on them will be the ones where the specific character is the focus. I don't have much info, but I have heard it on tv, and the actors are doing promo interviews for them. Boufa (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A similar moneyspinner was released in the UK a few years ago ([12]). If some good sources turn up for these new DVDs then it might be nice to add a little something to the DVD section. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD dates

I've just noticed that the release dates for the region 2 DVDs are wrong; the 2004 date refers to a repackaged release (bringing the box designs in line with the U.S. ones). I'll have a look round for the original release dates but somebody might want to check the Australian dates are right too. Bradley0110 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those were the most reliable sources I could find so I just stuck them in there. I really have no idea about the Aus release dates either. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the seasons 1 through 6 dates but will have to have a better look for the others. In the UK, the DVDs from season 7 onwards were released in three groups of two volumes, followed by the boxset, but I can't remember or find out if the boxset came out the same day as the last volumes. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard that...

this show is used for call-center training in India. Does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner 42 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)