Talk:Friends

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friends article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for Friends:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Move Trivia into character articles or other sections in the article. Cite references or sources. Add a section about the production history. Add a section about reviews and critical reactions. List all the episodes (Started) Complete broadcast information.

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Archives /Archive 1: Sep 2004 - Aug 2005 /Archive 2: Sep 2005 - Jan 2007

Contents 1 Running gags tone 2 Product placement 3 Present tense in opening sentence 4 Rewrite of article 5 Contradictory Statement - which is right? 6 References in other television series 7 Trivia 8 Article assessment

[edit] Running gags tone

The tone of this section is quite poor, as is the grammar/word choice. I'll work on it when I have time (no time with christmas less than 48 hours away). I added the {{tone}} template to the section to draw attention to the problem. 68.17.177.46 03:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it has a dedicated article, the section should simply be summarised. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that section used to be untouched. It's like trying to balance plates, this article, when one section is cut down, another expands with a lot of trivia. I think it's in need of a rewrite personally, which I think we should collaborate on. CloudNine 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product placement

If this section must be in the article then it needs to be better written and only actual product placement should be included (i.e. the Pottery Barn reference) rather than just passing references to existing products (many people have owned an N64 so why shouldn't the characters? Many people eat Toblerones, etc). I personally think this section is pointless and superficial but if it has to stay then clear references to the episodes that featured product placement needs to be made. 81.145.242.40 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to suggest that the show got payed money for putting these products in the episodes? I don't think there was any kind of product placement at all. I also think this section needs to be renamed or removed. Eenu (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rename it "List of times real-world products have been used as props because the producers want to create an air of authenticity (but with no clear reference to the episode in which said products appeared)"? That would be more appropriate. This is just a random list, an I-Spy guide to the props of the show and definitely not encyclopaedic. The Pottery Barn bit seems to be the anchor of this so-called "section" so why not delve into it? A simple Googling of "product placement friends pottery barn" turns up all sorts of things. This for example:

Yet, a moment later, hihi a reporter asked how this was different from a recent "product placement" in "Friends," Roth said it wasn't the same thing at all, not at all. Maybe you saw the episode in which Pottery Barn was mentioned repeatedly and, for the most part, flatteringly. Maybe you were struck, as I was, by the importance of a particular piece of Pottery Barn furniture to the plot. Maybe you didn't know that the item -- much cooed-over by both Ross and Rachel in the episode -- is featured in the store's current catalog. And that, as Roth confirmed, his studio, Warner Bros. Television, was compensated for this very special guest appearance.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000201/ai_n10582843

There is at least one academic paper that refers to the Pottery Barn incident: Russel, CA "Investigating the Effectiveness of Product Placements in Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand Memory and Attitude" in JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. · Vol. 29 · December 2002. Have a look. WindsorFan 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present tense in opening sentence

The bracketed comment about The West Wing is duly noted. But "Friends is a long-running sitcom" definitely makes it sound like it's still being made. You can have "Friends was a long-running sitcom" or "Friends is a sitcom", but the sentence as it stands now is just confusing. "Long-running" implies something that is continuing now, so the past tense is needed to clarify the issue. What does anyone else think about this? Martpol 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of article

Ok, it's time we cleaned up this article (as mentioned above). I'll be bold here. Sections, such as 'running gags', 'errors and inconsistencies', and 'references in other television series' (which really should be in their respective articles, or in a greatly reduced 'Popular Culture' section) dominate the article. We need a clear, trivia-free article, like The West Wing, that will be one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The link is:

Friends/Rewrite

Let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. CloudNine 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've discontinued the rewrite project. There wasn't any involvement, and the page was moved to my userspace; even though the Physics rewrite is still in main article space. CloudNine 09:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory Statement - which is right?

In the Friends Reunion section, it says they are getting together again for a series of four double-episodes, AND it says that Courtney Cox confirmed that that will never happen. Which is right?

And by the way, the reference to the Cox quote is obviously copied from an article. The reference to "Teusday" and the overall wording make that clear. Anyone care to rewrite? I would, but as pointed out above, I don't even know if it's true anymore, and deserves to be deleted... Nerrolken 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section. I think it was based off some internet rumour that got reported by the press....anyways, this was like a year ago, and nothing's been said since. Nevermind that Matthew Perry is in Studio 60 now, Courteney Cox is in some other series...etc. GrahameS 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really hang around this page much, so feel free to ignore this suggestion, but it does seem to me that a section discussing the return of Friends is necessary, if not just because so many people are thinking about it. It'll probably get added back anyway, and a lot of people, (myself included), come here to read about that specifically. So maybe there should be a section, just to satisfy the demand and keep people from posting more contradictory, if not patently false, information in the future? Anyway, like I said, just thinking out loud. Nerrolken 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am another person that surfs the Internet for ages trying to find out if there will be a Friends reunion. Most sources say there will be and some 'reliable' ones do, but there are a few which say there will not be. This needs to be confirmed in this article to make people's lives easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.209.149 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] References in other television series

I'd really like to delete the "References in other television series" section. It is obviously 100% OR and it adds nothing to the article. I think the article would be much better off without it. Protests? Pax:Vobiscum 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I added a trivia section - if it's deemed to be of interest, maybe it can be expanded. Vadimski 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a trivia section? That suggests there's information that can't be worked into the article, or is not of any note. Read WP:AVTRIV - trivia sections shouldn't be introducted into articles. CloudNine 11:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just a guideline. People can do as they please. A trivia section is a very good idea. Xanucia 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

Nighthawkzx requested assessment of this article on 24 March 2007 here. As requested I have read the article and given assessment. These categories are arbritrary and are subject to review by any editor who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I'd like to explain my reasoning behind the assessment here.

I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.

1. Article is correctly named

Meets notability criteria (long running, high viewership, award winning)

2. Infobox is present and correct

3. Introduction is present but I think this section needs some work.

• I think the introduction is too soon to discuss alternative names that were considered for the show - perhaps this would be better placed in an origins section.
• The information about viewing statistics for the finale reads as contradictory - "the fourth most watched series finale" is a direct contradiction of "It is also the most watched series finale" this should be re-worded. Viewing statistics for the finale are very specific for the lead of the article - this information would be better placed in a section specifically discussing the finale. For the lead it is important to establish an overview of the viewer base - perhaps seek out an average viewing figure for reference in the ratings section.
• A brief overview of what to expect in the coming article is an important aim for the lead - there is already a mention of the broadcasters, awards and longevity but a summary sentence about the cast would help in this area.

4. Character is present and has the important information, however:

• The primary characters section is in list format. Instead summary style should be used with a brief mention of each of the main characters and a link to a character list. The tables should be farmed out to appropriate subarticles. Why are there three subarticles for character lists? The main article should link to a single comprehensive character list and this list can be subdivided into further lists if necessary.
• The table of secondary characters should also be replaced with a prose summary and moved to an appropriate list article.
• The secondary characters section lists some important guest stars but also includes a somewhat superfluous mention of crossover wth CSI. Is this notable? Can you cite a source that establishes a reason for this being notable? If not this paragraph should probably go.

5. There is no plot section. Try writing a paragraph summarising the story arc of each main character for each season. This section should act as a summary for a comprehensive list of episodes and further subarticles describing the plot of each season in more detail. If these article become overlong then articles for individual episodes might be considered.

6. You have a comprehensive episode listing in place here but the only link to it I found in the main article was in the footer template. This is a good episode list. It should have a pride of place see also link in the plot section.

7. There is a referenced cultural impact section in prose format. These are not easy sections to get going so well done for finding some sources. Keep an eye out for further ones as the article grows.

8. Critical reviews - there is no critical response section, check out metacritic and start summarising a cross-section of reviews from good sources.

9. Production notes - introduce a section about how the show is created. DVD making of documentaries are a good start. Who are the key cast members? How long does it take to film an episode? How long does it take to write an episode? Where are episodes filmed?

10. External links - present and correct

11. Categories - the article is in quite a lot of categories. Is their a nineties TV shows to match the noughties one?

You have some sections that make departures from the guideline also:

• Consider uniting the worldwide broadcasters and the NBC broadcast times section under broadcasters. The broadcasters list is long and detailed and may be overwhelming for a reader unfamiliar with the subject. I'd consider moving this into a subarticle. Perhaps unifying the broadcast and

• The ratings section is also very long and detailed. Perhaps this could be moved to a subarticle with a summary remaining.

• The running gag section is a long list. Lose the bullet points though and it is already a series of prose paragraphs. Some of the content in this article appears to be duplicated in the subarticle and as I said this is quite a long list. Perhaps try using shorter summaries of only the most long running/significant gags in the main article and put the bulk of the information in the subarticle.

• Similarly the product placement section is a long list. Is this notable information for wikipedia? Is it one of the most significant things about Friends? Are there any reliable sources that refer to product placement on friends? If the answer to any of these questions is no then this information should not be in the main article, and possibly does not belong on wikipedia. If the information is important then it needs to be presented in a prose format and once again either cut down or moved to a subarticle with a summary remaining.

• Awards and nominations is also a list format. This should come under the banner of critical response and should be in prose. Friends has one quite a few awards so I would once again consider a summary of the most notable with a subarticle. Some of the less famous awards appear to be missing from the current list.

• Errors and inconsistencies - this should be brought under the banner of production notes and the more specific information relating to specific characters and episodes should be moved to those articles. For the main article it is sufficient to note that inconsistencies exist in certain areas and link to the articles that illustrate this in greater depth. This section requires some references.

• Merchandise - add some reviews of the notable merchandise to extablish it's significance. The episode list is a good place to list specific DVDs and a comprehensive record of their special features. The list of features here in the main article seems superfluous.

• Spinoff - a well done section with about the right amount of info. The rumours about the other spinoff need to be cited or excised. A see also for Joey is appropriate at the start of the section to highlight the existence of a separate article for the spinoff.

The article is a good start. However some important information is missing and there is a lot of editing still to do. Friends was a major TV show and is very well known hence the "high" importance rating. The article here is a "start" towards the kind of information I would like to see about the show. My 3 major recommendations are:

1. Start plot and critical response sections.
2. Convert the lists in the article into prose or move them into separate lsit articles
3. Move the specific detail out to appropriate subarticles and get only the key information in the main article.

Hope this is of some use.--Opark 77 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)