Talk:Friends/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Trivia link survey

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

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

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

Do not link to Amazon

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

Allow the link

  1. ricjl

24.95.67.193

Discussion

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

Rob Walker wrote

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

How many eps?

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

If you are counting two-parters as two episodes: 238 total. (episodes per season 1-10 : 24, 24, 25, 24, 24, 25, 24, 24, 24, 20). Source: [2] . Chrysalis 06:36, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
They're only 2-parters on the DVDs hehehe. (ricjl 22:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))
And in syndication :Neuropedia 10:13, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Consider moving?

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

It would be fine that way. But it is also fine this way because neither of the other topics have articles called "Friends". I'd don't mind either way, but if you do change it, would you mind fixing all the links that currently come here expecting to find the TV programme, thanks! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it should be a disambig page. I also think there was also a music band named Friends but I am unsure wherther a wikipedia entry exists for them.--Ingolemo 19:38, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think in this case the TV show is by far, far, the most dominant usage, so the TV show should remain here as our policy states, and particularly as it saves effort as described above. Feel free to create Friends (disambiguation) though. Pcb21| Pete 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree to the above. The Quakers and suck aren't actually called 'Friends' officially. Where does it end? There's plenty of families called McDonalds but there's one pretty overwhelming use there (ricjl 22:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC))


Is that cricket babe?

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

Where do you write that? (I ask because it wasn't on this article, which has not been edited for five days). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I Didn't actually put it on the main page, but i did have it linked to Chandler Bing, Joey Tribbiani and Chandler and Joey's apartment. It was actually a seperate article. Cheers for showing an interest anyway. --Crestville 23:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I asked the user about it earlier, but got a response something akin to "it's not hurting anything". It isn't even linked to in the Friends article itself. Delete and try to make mentions of it in either Chandler Bing or Joey Tribbiani. Mike H 21:48, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Put it back in Chandler and Joey's apartment where it belongs. Also add to List of furniture featured in sit-coms. 'scuse me while I get back to writing my sofa's life story. Ianb 21:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Haha funny...on TV...had to be there. Too minor a feature of a TV show, unsearchable term. Geogre 00:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete fan trivia. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:32, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Beyond the limit. Delete and also delete the apartment articles. Any useful information can go under the character articles. MK 21:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Friends v Seinfeld

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

I also don't like the fact that we're asking contributors to add POV instead of quoting television historians and columnists, who are marginally more informed in this area. Mike H 14:32, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Just reverted to previous good version - it's blatantly POV and doesn't really add anything. Example is that they state that Friends is similar to Seinfeld because of the episode naming - not exactly a great comparison tbh. violet/riga 14:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
About "Friends vs My Favorite Sitcom" - Friends and Seinfeld are considered two major classics of the 90's, and suspiciously resemble each other, so i thought a comparison was in order. It was somewhat POV because I personally think Seinfeld is better..
That's just it, though. You're not allowed to say anything is better than anything. Telling facts is what is important, and not personal opinions you may have. Mike H 14:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well that's why I put in the 'Pro-Friends' section, to show all sides of the debate, although i hade nothing to contribute there myself. Also, Violetriga, maybe you should go through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again, especially on the section of Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Somos
I didn't remove it simply for being POV, I really don't see how the article benefits, nor do I think that the comparisons are legitimate. Coincidences happen and the character of Pheobe, as you mention, could be inspired by a variety of sources or none at all - we can't say either way. As mentioned above we don't want "Friends v Simpsons" or "Friends v Blah". violet/riga 15:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I support it being deleted. Unless the directors, writers, or critics at that time had made the connection its irrelivant. This is an encyclopaedia not a debate club. Go post it on a forum. (ricjl 21:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))


Broadcaster changes

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

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

Fair enough, you do seem to care a whole lot. I dunno what a caveat is though 8/. (ricjl 01:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC))
It's nothing to do with caring, it's to do with putting up factual information. I live in the UK, and have watched Friends since it was first aired here, so I feel ably qualified to put up UK broadcaster information. Also, if you don't know what caveat means, may I respectfully suggest that you look it up? Neuropedia 23:57, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Also known as

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

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

Finale

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

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

David Crane

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

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

Joanna

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

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

Where is Friends set?

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

Trivia: 55 people paid to watch

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

Season 8 Censorship in Malaysia.

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


more for trivia

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

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

Can you think of anything more?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/i/Talk%7EFriends_Archive_1_2f54.html"