Talk:Friends

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friends article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 365 days

Friends 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 12, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
February 6, 2018	Good article reassessment	Kept
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 6, 2023, and May 6, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Television: Friends Top‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Friends task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

On 2 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Friends (TV series). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 2 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There are different proposals raised in in the discussion:

To move as proposed;
To move to Friends (1994 TV series);
To remain status quo.

On (TV series) vs (1994 TV series), as raised by various participants, pageviews for this series is significantly higher than the other numerous series, and in examining the charts, have been consistently so despite the introduction of newer serieses of the same name. Therefore WP:PDAB would be applicable, and the article would have been moved to (TV series). However in examining the various arguments, I find that the those opposing a move of any kind holds stronger: statistics (pageviews between this series and other series similarly named, and the concept friendship (consolidated); wikinav; google search results ranking) clearly demonstrated that this series is the primary topic of 'Friends'. As mentioned by various participants, there are also hatnotes pointing to 'Friendship' and the dab page and the arrangement is sufficient. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Material Works 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]

Oppose hatnote is sufficient for those looking for friendship and non plural friend redirects directly there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friends (1994 TV series) and move DAB to base name. There is no clear primary topic between the 1994 TV series, generic meaning and Quakers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, use "Friends (1994 TV series)"; clearly the common noun is the common meaning. And as this TV show is so old, many zoomers don't even know it exists; though many boomers also don't know it exists, since it was mostly relevant to that generation that grew up with it, instead of being an intergenerational TV show -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Many zoomers don't even know it exists I was born in 2000 and a significant amount of my peers are fans of or have seen the show. After all, it still airs on TV and it's available on streaming platforms. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would love to see the article (and everything relating to the series) deleted, but it's not going to happen. The TV series is clearly the common/primary topic. Just google "friends" and - certainly for my results - I have to wait until page 3 before I get anything that isn't related to the show. It's insidious, but that's how it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaheel Riens WP:NWFCTM Friendship as a concept, which has been around since the dawn of human civilization. Or a 30 year old TV show from America? What's more significant in the long term, do you think? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term under discussion is "Friends", not "Friendship", and there's a subtle but important distinction. In this context, the answer is - sadly - the TV show. Incidentally, be careful replying with essentially the same response to multiple people - it could be construed as WP:BLUDGEON. Not there yet, but just be aware of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but move to Friends (1994 TV series) as above. TV show is not primary for friends. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others said this is the primary topic you say friends most people would think of this show instead of their actual friends Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking Your metric literally is what WP:NWFCTM says not to use.

Friendship as a concept, which has been around since the dawn of human civilization. Or a 30 year old TV show from America? What's more significant in the long term, do you think? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is not taking up the primary topic at friend/friendship. Two things can coexist at singular and plural names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I'd rather we use "(TV series)" as a disambiguator over "(1994 TV series)" as I think this passes WP:PDAB. I otherwise would support in principle, but worry that this may end up benefiting very few people in practice. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:31, 6 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]

Support. "Friends" is a word like "apple". Srnec (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:PLURALPT. People will probably type "friend" if looking for the concept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – Material Works 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. – Material Works 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Comedy has been notified of this discussion. – Material Works 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support a show not matter how popular is not more significant than the concept of friends—blindlynx 18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all of the reasons already outlined – it gets very tedious how many voters ignore that hatnotes are a perfectly acceptable solution in a case like this. And especially oppose Friends (1994 TV series) which is a patently absurd suggestion – if this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and, FTR, I agree that it is), it is absolutely the "primary subtopic" by any reasonable, rational definition. So oppose, though Friends (TV series) is the correct the fallback position. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facetious comment - what really annoys me is when I talk about the Friends episode on TV last night, and everybody asks me "the Korean reality show, or the 2002 drama?" It's obvious I'm referring to the 2014 reality show instead. Obviously. Who's even heard of the other show outside of America anyway? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post a serious comment in reply to this – it's really unfortunate that there are two (almost three) South Korean series with this title as well: it would be much simpler if there were two American series, and one Polish and one South Korean series... But page views leave no doubt here: [1] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the second criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explicitly claims that we should consider long-term educational significance. NGL, I'm fairly confident that friendship is more significant overall than a TV show. Red Slash 21:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is at Friendship, not "Friend" or "Friends". That's more than a "WP:SMALLDETAILS" difference. And, again, there is a hatnote, just in case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a case of WP:SMALLDETAILS as the concept is still commonly called "Friend(s)" which is why Friend is a primary redirect. This isn't like say Crickets where the plural has a significantly different distinct meaning. The DAB page has some 97 uses plus 4 in the "See also" and has 3 common meanings, 1994 TV series, concept and Quakers. Putting the top 3 like they already are similar to Mercury and Lincoln would surely be more helpful than having a primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not cite the WP:SMALLDETAILS to me, @IJBall:. I was there when it was written. JK, no, but seriously and with respect... as I see it, this isn't a "small details" because "friends" is a perfectly valid way to refer to the topic of "friendship". This is more akin to having eggs redirect to eggs as food rather than to egg; there are a lot of different ways to refer to the concept of friendship. Red Slash 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I were to concede that most people typing in "Friends" aren't looking for the U.S. TV series (and, FTR, I'm not conceding that), it's still there in the hatnote. I think too many people get hung up on the idea that "everyone needs to get everywhere they're intending to in 'one click'" on Wikipedia – I personally think that "two-click solutions" (e.g. via hatnotes) are perfectly acceptable, and I suspect most of the readership feels the same way. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is still a very, very popular TV show, and the "concept" of friendship is comparatively less interesting. Friendship is blown out of the water in pageviews and I strongly suspect that "Friendship" is getting some redirects from "Friend" that really want something else. SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"comparatively less interesting" is meaningless. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was said to stop bludgeoning the discussion. 2. They are referring to what is apparently less interesting to site visitors, not themselves. I think most people know that discussions shouldn't be about what is interesting to them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:54, 10 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]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implied? Should be reliably sourced not implied

"It is heavily implied in the spin-off series, Joey, that Rachel married Ross after the series finale." Please remove this sentence from the article. The information in this encyclopedia should be reliably sourced WP:RS not "implied", not even "heavily implied". -- 109.79.65.30 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@109.79.65.30 don't be daft. Nuances, emotions and implications cannot be "reliably sourced'

Would you remove Father Christmas from Wiki as he cannot be "reliably sourced" 209.93.179.192 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, reliable sourcing still applies to fiction. Married or not married is factual information and facts must be reliably sourced. A general opinion that the characters appeared to be in love or still a couple would be an opinion, and even then that should be attributed to the reviewer, not the own interpretation of a wikipedia editor that something was "heavily implied". Facts need to be backed by sources. -- 109.79.69.216 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace X "It is heavily implied in the spin-off series, Joey, that Rachel married Ross after the series finale." with Y ""
i.e. delete the original research because this encyclopedia is supposed to be based on verifiable facts WP:V not guesswork. -- 109.77.197.22 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reunion series after 17 years. Jzheng66 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Grammar: change "tightly wound" to "tightly-wound" (in the description of Monica) 2A00:23C4:F902:3E01:EC07:FD17:4401:F29A (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: MOS:HYPHEN. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the show

This show starts off when Ross, Pheobe, Monica, Joey, and Chandler meet Rachel who was a high school friend of Monica's. Rachel runs away from her wedding and seeks shelter in Monica's apartment. The story continues, showing us what happens in their lives. Although this show is good, it is not the best. It has a slow plot and and is not very enjoyable to watch and is overrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.249.128 (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many people that say things like that. I think friends is a great show, but you can have your own opinion. 🤷🏼‍♀️ 2603:900A:2007:8474:1897:3314:46E8:AB72 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]