Talk:Friends

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skarmory (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 17 June 2023 (→‎Requested move 2 June 2023: Opposing move.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleFriends has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 21, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 6, 2018Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 6, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: SRhum11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racial controversies

There's a lot of sources that Friends experiencing racial issues. I was considering to put "Racial Controversies" as a section in the article.

  • David Schwimmer's Tweet (Friends vs Living Single). [1]
  • Marta Kauffman's lack of diversity. [2]

Any suggestions? Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. I'm guessing that because the comment is over a year old and there isn't any of this in the article that you came to same conclusion already, but Marta Kauffman is in the news again[1] and some might attempt to reconsider the idea. It can be fun to take frivolous things and pretend to analyse them seriously, but it is a bad idea to judge a tv show from decades ago by current standards, and this encyclopedia article should not give it any more attention than it has already got. Friends owes much to Cheers and the genre of sitcoms as a whole (amongst other influences[3]). Also WP:MEDIUM is not a reliable source. It is a remarkable achievement that Friends is still relevant enough for this discussion to even happen, it is not like anyone complains about the lack of diversity in Fraiser. It is a triumph that people see Friends as too homogenous rather than a change from the usual in television. It would be inappropriate and undue to get distracted by recently invented controversies. The show that ran for ten years, it was covered in great depth and breath, and this encyclopedia article could do so much better if editors wanted to do more about the Production or the Cultural impact of the show. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Alexander, Erika (2021-04-13). "Why The Friends vs. Living Single Twitter Beef Really Matters". ZORA. Retrieved 2021-12-07.
  2. ^ "'Friends' Co-Creator Says 'I Was Part of Systemic Racism'". Observer. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  3. ^ Jim DeRogatis (Sep 3, 2000). "Screenplays spawn imitators". Chicago Sun-Times – via www.Jimdero.com. they had changed just enough of the details so that it would be not an easy lawsuit

Undue emphasis on the recent Reunion

In the lead section please replace X "The sitcom's cast members returned for a reunion special aired on HBO Max on May 27, 2021." with Y "" ie delete the text. (The text was added before the special aired[2] and rephrased after so a clean revert is unlikely to be possible. Not important but I did check.)

The reunion is only a very small part of the show and small part of this article so should not be highlighted in the WP:LEAD section. There was a whole spin-off series Joey with 48 episodes and doesn't even get mentioned in the lead, and it shouldn't, but neither should the one off reunion episode. It is WP:UNDUE to highlight a single "behind the scenes" episode in the lead (it is not even an real episode of the show). It might have seemed important because it was recent but compared to the 10 ears of the show and 236 it is hardly important at all. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the line about the reunion from the intro would a conservative change to this encyclopedia article, restoring the much longer established status quo, bringing the article back to be more like the version when it was reassessed for GA status in 2018. Shouldn't editors be explaining why the reunion episode deserves so much special emphasis? Why give so much weight to a tiny amount in proportion to a show with a ten year run and hundreds of episodes? (It is not even a narrative episode, it is only a behind the scenes special.) By all means include it in the article body and with the Production section but why give it unnecessary emphasis in the lead?) How exactly am I supposed to gain consensus for this minor change? Anyone? -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

Hi there,

In the References section, the following should be removed:

  1. 178, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 190, 193, 196, 199, 202. All link to pages which no longer exist. They all redirect to the homepage. MattSmilesHN (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: We normally do not removed references from article. I have ran the article through IABot and archived the references. However, you're free to find newer reliable sources, include them here, and request it to be replace/update. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comma

This edit is wrong; the relative clause is defining, hence there should not be a comma. Why is ist defining? Because the set of possible referents of an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman differs from that of an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004. -- UKoch (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have missed the defining bit. Its name. Friends. A defining relative clause contains information that is essential to understand what the subject is. You don't need to know the dates it aired to know what sitcom is being discussed.
If there were another sitcom called friends that was created by Crane and Koffman that did not air on those dates, you'd be right. I don't think there is.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See examples to show the point:
'This article is about an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman'
More info needed. So


that/ which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004
becomes defining. However...
This article is about Friends, an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman
No more info needed. So
, which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004,

NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/relative-clauses-defining-and-non-definingNEDOCHAN (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NEDOCHAN, thanks for your answer. You wrote:
A defining relative clause contains information that is essential to understand what the subject is.
Not the subject, but the antecedent of the relative clause. This antecedent isn't Friends, but an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman.
Your second example above is wrong for the same reason: You're going beyond the noun phrase that consists of the antecedent and the relative clause.
-- UKoch (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. You can go wherever you like. As per the source I've given.
We use defining relative clauses to give essential information about someone or something – information that we need in order to understand what or who is being referred to.
This is rarely the case when you've named the thing in question already. Defining or non-defining clauses are exactly that. The information viz the airing dates is not required to understand who or what is being referred to.
As for going beyond the noun phrase, I should point out that that's the opposite of what I've done. I've gone before it. To where the definition takes place. You can't ignore the name in order to make the noun phrase essential. Understanding who or what the head noun refers to is the point. The head noun is absolutely relevant. Again, see the Cambridge example I've posted. You'll see the head nouns require more info in the DRC examples. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The antecedent is 'Friends is an American sitcom' not 'an American sitcom'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

This is a request to change the exact premiere/finale air dates in the lead section to general month/year dates a la this edit 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I formally retract this request per Geraldo Perez. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done (edit conflict) Infobox summarizes what is in the lead and article, it doesn't replace it. General practice is to put the full dates in the lead when known and sourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Clarify a Pronoun

What is the antecedent of the pronoun he in this word string: "Ross, who has had a crush on Rachel since high school, often attempts to declare his feelings for her. However many obstacles stand in his way, including his insecurities, Rachel dating an Italian neighbour named Paolo, and the fact that he is expecting a baby with his lesbian ex-wife, Carol, who gives birth to Ben later in the season. Does he refer to Paolo, closest antecedent? (AltheaCase (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

change ‘barista’ to ‘owner’ when referring to Gunther 2A00:23C7:880B:6201:4DD6:FF8C:9DED:646C (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: did you miss the part that says "at one point he becomes the manager of the coffee house"? M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - Link not working

In the episode grid at the beginning of the article, "The Reunion" - despite being a clickable link - doesn't link to anything. Can someone fix this so it goes to Friends: The Reunion - Wikipedia as intended? 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both links to the reunion article work fine for me. Callmemirela 🍁 18:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are three or more links, not just two. Two of them work fine for me too. The one in the sidebar works fine. The one in the subsection about the Reunion works fine. But the one I'm speaking about (that doesn't work) is the one in the grid under Season Synopsis. When I click on that, the name in the URL changes but it does not actually load the article. If it's just an issue with my browser, then that doesn't explain why the other two links work fine. So I think there is an issue with that one. Can you double check the link in the grid I mention? Can someone else too? 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The same goes for the other seasons. I don't have access to a computer at the moment. If somebody doesn't fix it for me, I'll do it in less than an hour. Callmemirela 🍁 18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd fix it (I edit as an IP user) but I can't edit this article without an account. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know in the meantime if the same happens for other links and the table at List of Friends episodes. Callmemirela 🍁 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems ok. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. Let me know if it works on your end now. Callmemirela 🍁 19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems to be working fine now. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 June 2023

Friends → Friends (TV series) – Love the show, but "Friends" should redirect to Friendship. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose For the record, this was discussed at Talk:Friends (disambiguation) in 2019, so basically I'll repeat myself. This page gets millions of views per year and so I think it is what readers want for this term and moving it would not improve the encyclopedia. I didn't support the move in the last discussion, but the DAB page as primary, I can see why someone would think that. The WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT proposal here is an AWFUL idea, this page is extremely highly viewed, way more than Friendship, no evidence anyone would want that! --Quiz shows 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quiz shows Look at WP:NWFCTM. What's more significant, friendship which has been around for millions of years, or a 30 year old TV show. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but move to Friends (1994 TV series) - due to other series with that name (WP:INCDAB), and per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (everyday usage and long-term significance). A TV show never deserves primary status over an everyday term from which it inherits its meaning - view counts be damned. Just like any corporate creation, we should follow the apple/Apple Inc. precedent. I am fine with waiting to repoint the leftover redirect for 30 days after the TV show article has been moved, to allow external search engines to catch up. After this move, this page will still get is "millions of views" because that's how external search engines work. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This discussion has been had before. I don't think anything major has changed in four years, and the page views for this being the primary topic is convincing enough for me. Ss112 18:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A wise man said at the previous RM: "Nothing astonishing here as far as I can see. Friends was viewed five million times last year; its daily average is almost as much as the total amount of views Friends (disambiguation) gets in twelve months. A roadblock isn't warranted here." I don't see any reason to have changed my mind. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views aren't important. Think of the reason why the show is called what it is. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Friends should direct to friendship or Quakers. The TV show may be currently popular but has neither the "long-term significance" nor "educational value" to be deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per PT2. Walrasiad (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said I dislike the programme, but to say [t]he TV show may be currently popular but has neither the "long-term significance" nor "educational value" is not true - it ended in 2004. And yet you admit that it's currently popular - which is not bad for a show that ended 19 years ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I was to go out and say friends to 100 people I bet at least 90 of them will say something about the show this is one of the most well know shows ever Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends where you live. Walrasiad (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Comedy has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Friends as the tv show, with friendship for the concept, makes sense. The text at the top of the page helps anyone who is on the wrong page. 2A00:23C8:185:B501:4484:7CDB:ABD1:DEF4 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the various reasons stated above. The hatnote already tells readers if they're looking for the idea of "friendship" itself or other related terms. The show is still very popular worldwide and sees much more page views than the concept of friendship. Outside of Wikipedia, even Googling "Friends" will bring up many results related to the tv series (if that's worth noting). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the proposed move, but oppose a move to Friends (1994 TV series) as unnecessarily WP:PRECISE. The 1994 TV series receives 148 times as many monthly pageviews as all other TV series titled "Friends" combined (stats link), which places it well within normal bounds for an acceptable WP:PDAB. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; yes, pageviews aren't everything, but when the TV series gets almost 8x as many views as the concept of Friendship since July 2015, I find it hard to make a case for a primary redirect to Friendship. The argument for a DAB page is a bit stronger with the existence of Quakers, but it's still not very close. I just don't think a different setup from what we currently have would actually aid our readers, especially with the hatnotes in place. Wikinav's graphs are only half working right now, but over the past two months, Friendship isn't even in the top 10 most outgoing pageviews from Friends. (The 1994 TV series disambiguation is even worse – this is literally the exact situation WP:PDAB is meant for?) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friends&oldid=1160535876"