Talk:Friends
Friends has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class. |
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. | |||
| Article policies | ||
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 | |||
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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 1 year may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page. |
GA reassessment[edit]
Friends[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept Fixed up a few issues with the close paraphrasing. Everything else is quotes or most likely copied from here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Per this, the article contains at least some very close paraphrasing, which the original GA review apparently missed, and containing a full sentence that was not appropriately marked as a quotation should have been an autofail, IMO. I don't have the time or inclination to go through the whole article and rewrite everything so that it accords with Wikipedia policy (and GACR2d); if someone else wants to do so they are welcome to, but I don't see that happening.
The plot summary is also a bit crufty and doesn't make internal sense (Mike Hannigan and David the Science Guy should not be introduced in the same sentence, if David is even noteworthy enough to be mentioned at all).
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Sent a notification to the previous reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: I ran earwigs tool here. The 98.5% reliability is to a wiki and likely copied from this article. The 44% confidence ones all seem to be from reprints from the same article and most seem to be quotes or part mentions.[1] The discovered close paraphrasing is easily fixable so I am not inclined to delist it for copy violations unless there are more examples. However, I am not particularly fond of the character descriptions. Anything that is not describing actions (plot) should be cited or it reads like WP:OR. For example
Phoebe is ditsy but street smart. She writes and sings her own quirky songs, accompanying herself on the guitar. She has an "evil" identical twin named Ursula, who shares Phoebe's quirkiness, but, unlike Phoebe, seems to be selfish and uncaring. Phoebe is childlike and innocent in disposition.
There are similar things for other characters. The rest is pretty good though so I would be tempted to trim out the character descriptions, fix the above sentence and keep it as a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments by Paige Surtees[edit]
I don't think the word armadillo is a problem because someone might get confused by the context and yes it needs to be linked. By the quotation marks I think it's relevant because of the confusion it might cause Paige Surtees (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the word armadillo is a problem because someone might get confused by the context and yes it needs to be linked. By the quotation marks I think it's relevant because of the confusion it might cause Paige Surtees (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Distributor[edit]
Why is Warner Bros. Television the distributor and not NBC? Hasn't paid NBC the whole production costs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.71.224 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The women characters in the show, Rachel, Pheobe and Monica were purposely given different kinds of child birth. Rachel was a single monther, Pheobe was a surrogate for her brother's children and Monica chose to adopt. They wanted to show that child birth is beautiful no matter which kind. Lekhapra (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
184.190.44.233 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
friends are some one who does not stabe you in the back and waches out for you
- 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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Characters image[edit]
Bi-on-ic, Igordebraga, Akcvtt, and George Ho supported restoring the image. The editors argued that WP:NFCC#1 does not apply because there is no free equivalent. Bi-on-ic argued that the free images on Commons are of the cast in their middle age and not how they looked like during the show's run from 1999 to 2004.
Explicit, the deleting admin, argued that WP:NFCC#1 does apply because there are free equivalents. Explicit said that photos can be used of the cast members "during the show's 1994–2004 run (like File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg and File:Matt Le Blanc.jpg) or images taken a few years after it ended that don't show any significant difference in appearance (like File:David Schwimmer.jpg and File:Lisa Kudrow 2.jpg)".
Bi-on-ic responded that those images are not free equivalents because they show only parts of the actors' faces or sunglasses.
A talk page discussion is not the right forum to seek overturning the deletion of the image. I recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
- The following discussion 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.
The article needs the picture of the series' characters. It does not violate WP:NFCC#1. There is no free equivalent. The free images of the Commons are photos of the cast in their middle age not how they looked over the show's run. Purpose of use is illustrating the main characters not the cast. The whole idea and concept of the show are portraying a group of single people in their mid-20s and the appearance is part of their persona. This photo makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the characterizations, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The previous images were half-face photos of the cast in shades! It's an ensemble cast of a famous TV show so the readers should know what the characters look like. Bionic (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, specially as the image in the infobox is the series logo, so the cast isn't there. An image of the actors\characters would help. igordebraga ≠ 14:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Explicit who deleted the image. I somehow concur that the cast photo would be needed (whether free or not), but I am unsure whether the RFC would prompt un-deletion or re-creation of the non-free image. Instead, if the deletion is not undone (just for the image to be reinserted and then taken to FFD), then WP:DRV would be the way to go. George Ho (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC); edited, 06:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Another note: the other non-free image was replaced back in 2015 with gallery of cast members. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- First, I'd like to point out that two deletions took place. I deleted File:Friends Characters.png for violating WP:NFCC#1 on September 7, and File:Friends Characters.jpg was deleted by Fastily four days later.
- There is no automatic entitlement to a non-free cast photo simply because a freely licensed one does not exist. As WP:NFLISTS states, "For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media." Bionic's statement claims that the non-free photo shows "a group of single people in their mid-20s and the appearance is part of their persona", but readily ignores that the opening paragraph of this very article: "the show revolves around six friends in their 20s and 30s..." We either have perfectly adequate and licensed images of each actor that were taken either during the show's 1994–2004 run (like File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg and File:Matt Le Blanc.jpg) or images taken a few years after it ended that don't show any significant difference in appearance (like File:David Schwimmer.jpg and File:Lisa Kudrow 2.jpg). Policy simply does not support the inclusion of the non-free cast photo in this case. ƏXPLICIT 05:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Explicit: But what's the definition of an appropriate free image and where are those "perfectly adequate" images that you're referring to? These are the pictures in the article >> File:Matthew Perry 1995 (cropped).jpg, File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg, File:Lisa Kudrow 3.jpg, File:David Schwimmer 2005 Madagascar.jpg: Half of their face and they're wearing sunglasses, hence it does not violate WP:NFLISTS even if it's not totally supported by WP:F, there's a WP:RFC here for WP:CON as they used (File:Janetrollingstonecover.jpg) a non-free magazine cover in Janet Jackson article, not for Rolling Stone despite the Wiki's policy of non-free content that says, If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover. The same thing for Joanne Gair, Caitlyn Jenner etc, and it's not Other stuff exists these are WP:FA and WP:GA as Wikipedia's superior articles which could be referred as a pattern. Bionic (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Citing those other articles is still an other stuff exists argument. The circumstances aren't even the same, so you're basically arguing, "That page has a non-free image, so this one can have one, too!" The fact that they are FAs and GAs does not change that (and ultimately a weak argument, as we've had an FA with full-on copyright violations on the Main Page). Giving those linked articles a glance, it is unlikely that most of those images would survive WP:FFD, which I plan to follow through with when I make the time.
- @Explicit: But what's the definition of an appropriate free image and where are those "perfectly adequate" images that you're referring to? These are the pictures in the article >> File:Matthew Perry 1995 (cropped).jpg, File:Courteney Cox 1995.jpg, File:Lisa Kudrow 3.jpg, File:David Schwimmer 2005 Madagascar.jpg: Half of their face and they're wearing sunglasses, hence it does not violate WP:NFLISTS even if it's not totally supported by WP:F, there's a WP:RFC here for WP:CON as they used (File:Janetrollingstonecover.jpg) a non-free magazine cover in Janet Jackson article, not for Rolling Stone despite the Wiki's policy of non-free content that says, If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover. The same thing for Joanne Gair, Caitlyn Jenner etc, and it's not Other stuff exists these are WP:FA and WP:GA as Wikipedia's superior articles which could be referred as a pattern. Bionic (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly the problem is not just about the sunglasses of Courteney Cox & Matthew Perry!... The other reasons are already mentioned above.
- And no It's not a WP:WAX discussion. The thing is that when Wikipedia's administrators were choosing those articles as good/featured they were aware of the fact that a non-free magazine cover is used in a WP:BLP but there was a discussion about the need of those pictures and a conclusion that led to the use of the image in the article. To sum up, I don't think that according to the Wikipedia policies it's absolutely impossible for this article to have a small low-resolution image which significantly contributes to the article. Bionic (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the heading" Cultural Impact". I want to add that theres one more FRIENDS themed cafe in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Named as Central Kafe. Soma2792 (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the description from "six friends" to "six white friends" since the description for the tv series Living Single describes them as "six black friends" 47.201.39.12 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society
- Wikipedia GA-Class vital articles in Society
- Wikipedia GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs
- Media and drama good articles
- GA-Class Comedy articles
- High-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- GA-Class New York City articles
- Mid-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- GA-Class romance articles
- Mid-importance romance articles
- WikiProject Romance articles
- GA-Class television articles
- High-importance television articles
- GA-Class Friends articles
- Top-importance Friends articles
- Friends task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class American television articles
- High-importance American television articles
- American television task force articles
- American television articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia Ambassador Program student projects, 2012 Q1
No comments:
Post a Comment