Talk:Friends

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Friends was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 12, 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friends article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
To-do list for Friends: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Move Trivia into character articles or other sections in the article.
  • Cite references or sources.
  • Add a section about the production history.
  • Add a section about reviews and critical reactions.
  • List all the episodes (Started)
  • Complete broadcast information.
  • Develop episode articles, including referenced 'Production' sections: audio commentaries...
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1: Sep 2004 - Aug 2005
  2. /Archive 2: Sep 2005 - Jan 2007


Contents

[edit] 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 JPStalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 JPStalk 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)

[edit] Worldwide broadcast

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 JPStalk 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 JPStalk 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 JPStalk 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 JPStalk 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)

[edit] 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 JPStalk 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)

[edit] 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 JPStalk 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Reason?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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,


[edit] 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]


[edit] 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[1] (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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!'

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Anti-British

This was a terrible series anyway (not so much a sitcom, more a soap opera). But, when the episodes made in "London, England" were shown in the UK, many people who usually liked it were appalled at all the British characters being depicted as rude, snobbish and money-orientated, culminating in Elliot Gould's nasty line about "you'd be speaking German if not for us". And Helen Baxendale never once got a single funny line, having to play a posh, humourless cipher. What were the reasons for this portrayal? Were all the writers of this silly fluffy show IRA supporters, or something? Dolmance (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)