![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'.
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)
Yet, a moment later, when 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)
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)
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:
Let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. CloudNine 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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.
Meets notability criteria (long running, high viewership, award winning)
You have some sections that make departures from the guideline also:
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:
Hope this is of some use.-- Opark 77 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do we need to have this section in the exact article? Eugrus 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Can I just ask, is the fountain ever shown anywhere but in the opening credits? LookingYourBest 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Article does not tell why the show has been cancelled/ended. -- 88.106.121.79 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
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]
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
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)
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)
Does anybody know if there's information on the gender split among viewers? Wily D 17:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [2] 24.1.30.186 ( talk) 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)energyturtle
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'.
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)
Yet, a moment later, when 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)
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)
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:
Let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. CloudNine 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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.
Meets notability criteria (long running, high viewership, award winning)
You have some sections that make departures from the guideline also:
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:
Hope this is of some use.-- Opark 77 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do we need to have this section in the exact article? Eugrus 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Can I just ask, is the fountain ever shown anywhere but in the opening credits? LookingYourBest 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Article does not tell why the show has been cancelled/ended. -- 88.106.121.79 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
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]
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
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)
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)
Does anybody know if there's information on the gender split among viewers? Wily D 17:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [2] 24.1.30.186 ( talk) 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)energyturtle
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)