Talk:List of Friends episodes/Archive 1

Synposes

I am planning to create plot synopses. Any objections?

Mimsie 17:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No objections from me. My experience in episode lists demonstrates that some Wikipedians may have something to say about it though. In several talk pages about episode lists I've seen comments about articles for each episode of any given show as being "excessive" or "unnecessary". Don't be surprised if you take some heat from them. Good luck. Redux 21:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since you are going to do this, I would suggest that you throw in an episode-by-episode list of the guest stars. We already have an article about that, but it's just a simple list and there's no way to tell when or in which episode each one was there. Just a thought. Redux 21:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've started adding 'as ....' and a brief synopsis of the guest's involvement on List of guest stars on Friends. When done I reckon I'll do so for Joey (sitcom) as well. --Hooloovoo 23:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you guys are quick, I already received the equivalent of an eyebrow raise when I started the edits. I have already looked online and although there are definitely plenty of episode guides out there, they are all canned and not very detailed. I am hoping that with the wiki format I can create a more relationship-based guide whereby connections between characters, plot consistency, etc. can be explored. My strongest argument being that Star Trek obviously has in depth coverage all over the 'net, but I think the wiki List of Star Trek TNG episodes does a great job. Thanks for the support and suggestion!

New Design

I think it is time that the episode list is formatted using the template like other episode lists. I have already started with the first three seasons as guides. I've also uploaded screenshots for the first three seasons I took using Fraps. I would like it if some more people could help me out with changing the other seasons's templates or creating the screenshots. Please make your own screenshots and do no find them on the web.

--Drzoidberg91 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

template

I created a template for episode navigation to replace the tables that were in some of the articles. It is {{Episode navigators}}{{Episode navigation|parent=[[List of Friends episodes|List of ''Friends'' episodes]]|prev={{{1}}}|next={{{2}}} }}. Just type {{Friends navigation|[[preceeding episode|[[following episode]]}} (with pipes in between each piece). I'm working on adding it to articles, and fixing the category sorting. I also noticed that the list isn't uniform. We should probably work on that too. I'll do some if I have the time. Lachatdelarue (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Standardization

People, I realize it's a lot of [boring] work, but either we have all the season listings with boards or we have plain lists for them all (as it was before). But it really doesn't sit well to have half of the listings as boards and the other half as plain lists. More importantly, it seems that the effort to convert the simple lists into boards has come to a stop. The boards are not a bad idea, but nor are they essential to an article that is meant to be a simple list of episodes (as the article is structured right now, more details, such as plot summaries, should be located in each episode's article). If there's no intention of completing this conversion task, I'd favor reverting the whole thing back to it's original appearance — remember that nothing is completely lost in Wikipedia, so if ever someone decides to complete the change, they can just bring back the boards that had already been done and take it from there. Regards, Redux 18:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Season Infoboxes

I have created season infoboxes for every season of Friends (Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5, Season 6, Season 7, Season 8, Season 9 and Season 10). These have to be placed on every Friends episode page with the corresponding season. To place them, place {{Friends*}} on the top of every episode page, replacing the * with the season number. Squidward2602 13:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, these are great but there is some inconsistency in the nomenclature seasons 1,9-10 make use of the abbrieviated TOW, whilst seasons 2-8 use the full 'The One With/Where.' I have edited for consistency within seasons, but which should we use overall? I would suggest the full title as this is more accurate and clear. Others? Ck lostsword|^queta! 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely full title. Redux 13:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For Episode Summaries

Just wanted to point out that some brave soul on Geocities has a website with word-by-word transcriptions of, supposedly at least, every single Friends episode ever. I've been writing summaries based mostly on the episodes I've personally got copies of, but theoretically we could write up summaries relying on these transcripts alone. The site is http://www.geocities.com/vspramod/Links/friends/friends.htm. Marblespire 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Episodes category sort key

While it is important to fix the sort key, I wonder how to deal with season 10 episodes. For example, "The One With Princess Consuela" is sorted as "10-14" while causes it to appear at the end of the season 1 articles, and before the 2nd season ones. Should they be sorted "01", "02", ... "10"? The only problem is that the names in Category:Friends episodes would be 0 or 1 only. Any advice? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Talking about infoboxes, I realized the characters have uneven article formatting. While Phoebe and Chandler have sidebars with statics, the rest (but Monica) have pictures. Shouldn't all have the same?--201 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

I like what has been done to the page, but the images do make the page take longer to load. Samx 23:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

they are also a violation of wikipedia's Non-free content policy.Geni 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Spaces and "Alerts"

I've fixed the spacing of text in this article. Please remember that sentences should be separated by a period and a space, and that a space should also follow a comma, exclamation point, or colon.

I also removed the word "alert" that preceded all of the guest stars... it made the list look like it was copied from a fan site. I don't have the appropriate flashing lights and sirens on my computer to properly convey "alerts" anyway. Jaksmata 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

The good faith efforts by User:Mimsie (principally) to create individual articles for every episode were made before there was a clear policy about episode notability, since established at WP:EPISODES. Per that policy, it is clear that the majority of the individual Friends episode articles should be redirected to this list page where brief plot synopses can be provided; alternatively, the articles should be rewritten to address the notability issues laid out at the guideline. It should be quickly noted that plot summaries, goofs, and trivia are explicitly cited as unencyclopedic and insufficient content for individual episode articles. Over the 3 years that these articles have existed, few aspire to much more than that. Eusebeus 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• So you just take it on yourself to invalidate hundreds of hours of work by hundreds of editors. Nice. If there was an award for vandalism you'd sweep the votes. Captain Infinity 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I await my Barnstar. Seriously, there is further discussion here: Talk:Friends#IMPORTANT - Notability Concerns and Redirects for Individual Episodes. Cheers, Eusebeus 10:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge DVD releases into this article.

Having a separate article solely to list DVD release dates is absurd. I propose merging Friends DVD releases into this list. I've been boldly merging a few Friends articles lately without discussion but I thought this one might stir up some debate. Brad 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute the rationale. However as the article is 100 kilobytes there is already a valid argument for this article to be divided into seasons, based on this. Thus merging the two sections could ironically result in the creation of eight additional articles for the content of these two articles. My advice would therefore be not to merge, although I have no objection to either course of action. BeL1EveR 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like that's already begun. (season 1, season 2, season 3). I think I'll withdraw the merger proposal for now. Brad 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode article review (Season 1)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was to redirect all of the season 1 episode articles except the pilot The Pilot (Friends) to this page's list of episodes.

The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.

Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.

See also: #Redirects, above, and Talk:Friends#IMPORTANT - Notability Concerns and Redirects for Individual Episodes for prior discussion. --Jack Merridew 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Season 1

1. The Pilot (Friends)
2. The One with the Sonogram at the End
3. The One with the Thumb
4. The One with George Stephanopoulos
5. The One with the East German Laundry Detergent
6. The One with the Butt
7. The One with the Blackout
8. The One Where Nana Dies Twice
9. The One Where Underdog Gets Away
10. The One with the Monkey
11. The One with Mrs. Bing
12. The One with the Dozen Lasagnas
13. The One with the Boobies
14. The One with the Candy Hearts
15. The One with the Stoned Guy
16. The One with Two Parts, Part One
17. The One with Two Parts, Part Two
18. The One with all the Poker
19. The One Where the Monkey Gets Away
20. The One with the Evil Orthodontist
21. The One with the Fake Monica
22. The One with the Ick Factor
23. The One with the Birth
24. The One Where Rachel Finds Out

Discussion

I looked these over just prior to posting this. The Pilot has a bunch of references and they should be looked at closely. The others all are mere plot summary with occasional trivia sections and guest appearances listings. These could all be simply represented in a concise form in the LOE summaries. Absent significant improvement, most of these should be redirected to the LOE. Interested editors should work to improve the articles with an eye to meeting WP:N; as it is, see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA. --Jack Merridew 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1 and 2 seem to be the only episodes which might benefit from having their own articles still (need improvement though) whereas the rest are simply plot summaries and trivia. Approxiamately 90% of the episodes lack any kind of sources. I don't think there are many sources available for the majority of these episodes, however there definitely could be for a few of them; therefore remove redundant content to the LOE page and consider making a season 1 page. If one of the regular editors wants to or feels they have some good info to contribute (from a book say), then a really good season page could be made.

Seraphim ^Whipp 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to go through all of them yet, but I would like to note... many things found in the first season that could be notable, such as character introductions, character history building, can also be noted in character articles. I suspect us finding more information that is better in a per-character format than in a per-episode in this first season of a long running show. I'm not saying there won't be notable episodes, but that some info might be worth mentioning one way or another. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to review all the episodes, but I did take the time to look at the pilot and it looks fine. That article can stay just the way it is (speaking of course that there is no reason to merge it, it still could use some expanding). Although, I think it needs to have a corrected title, as it doesn't fit naming conventions, but I've left that discussion on the article's talk page (please feel free to answer my question about that there).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. I have gone through the Friends episodes and almost all of them amount to little more than a plot summary + trivia. I have brought two episodes so far (not from Season 1, however) up to a level that meets WP:EPISODE. But from Season 1, only the pilot seems like it could satisfy the notability standard. The rest should be redirected to the LOE. Eusebeus 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect All but the Pilot, obviously. None assert notability. i ^said 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick Amazon.com search turned up these books. I don't know if they'll help with these articles, but I thought I would mention it. Like I said above, though, I suspect much of this would work just as well, if not better, if formatted in the character articles:

• http://www.amazon.com/Friends-Channel-Four-Book-David/dp/0752201840
• http://www.amazon.com/Friends-One-about-Sitcom-About/dp/0451209672
• http://www.amazon.com/Friends-Til-End-Official-Celebration/dp/1932273190
• http://www.amazon.com/Friends-Official-Trivia-Lauren-Johnson/dp/0451211626

-- Ned Scott 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect all but the pilot. --Jack Merridew 10:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

No comments in a week; time to close this and queue-up the next 3 seasons. --Jack Merridew 10:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's set up the redirects and bring on Seasons 2-4 for review. (If you set up the review, remember that I improved 2 episodes to the guideline, so they should not be included in the review.) Eusebeus 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, don't forget WP:OWN is not a valid point in discussion. Just because you rewrote two articles (leaving them mostly unsourced, I might add) it doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in the discussion. All articles should be listed here so all interested users can put down their opinion. Brad 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Owning a friends episode article! Anyway, list away. You are quite right. Btw, sourcing is not the same as asserting notability, fyi. Eusebeus 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When I list stuff for review, I list all episodes; in the last one I did (Talk:List of One Tree Hill episodes) I simply referred to the main list. The review should cover all articles even those that may well meet guidelines. I also believe we should be doing entire shows as blocks; the chunking is really just a matter of dealing with things in human-sized bites. --Jack Merridew 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This can be closed now. No new comments since the 13th. Merge all but the Pilot. i ^said 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it will be done. --Jack Merridew 11:07, 22 August 2007 (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.

Which episodes were supersized?

It would be helpful in this list to have an indication of which episodes ran for 40 minutes during their original NBC airings. --Mathew5000 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• All I remember was that they were only in Seasons 7, 9 and 10. TOW Monica Sings, TOW The Male Nanny, TO After Joey and rachel Kiss, TOW Stripper Cries, TOW Phoebe's Wedding are all super episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.183.137 (talk) 11:24, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The One where Rachel Finds Out Changed

I changed the title "The One where Rachel Finds Out" in the List of Season One Episodes to "The one with the Prom Video" per the name of the episode on the Full Season one DVDs.Nate7181 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

-Just Kidding- I was Wrong...161.225.129.111 00:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge All Remaining Episodes

Episodes from seasons 2-4 have had merge tags on them for a while and none has been improved to satisfy the WP:EPISODE guideline. I suggest redirecting all remaining episode articles to this page, including those seasons that have not been formally tagged since there has been no impact from the merge tag over several months now. Eusebeus 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - time to sort this. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you're not even bothering to adhere to the rules of review that you yourselves made up? Wow. Brad 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And when you say "none have been improved" I'm assuming you're too rude, lazy or just plain bone idle to have read (in their entirety) The One with the Rumor (a Good Article rated by editors who seek to improve the encyclopedia), The One with the Embryos, The One with All the Thanksgivings and The One with the Prom Video (currently a good article candidate). You obviously operate on different standards to the rest of us. It's all well and good redirecting articles that just say '"Jimmy Goes to Town" is the eighth episode of the Wikipeda TV series. In it Jimmy goes to town' to the main episode lists or the main series article. That's fine -- they don't hold any more information than the episode list, so they are redundant -- but when you suddenly say "Oh, you know what, sod the episode review we ourselves invented, let's just redirect them without a shred of discussion." So here's a list of the episode articles I believe pass the points set out in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (something descended from an actual policy). I would hope Jack Merridew, Eusebeus and TTN will join in the discussion to establish a proper consensus on this issue.

• Hi Brad, stop shouting and relax. I am happy to weigh in on the episodes you list and I welcome the work you have done below. I will add my comments below each episode. To be accurate, I never wrote "none have been improved"; I wrote "none has been improved" because none is a singular noun. Also, although you think this is a cavalier exercise, you are quite wrong: I looked through all (or almost all) the individual episodes as part of the merge process. Eusebeus 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• The One with the Lesbian Wedding: Provoked reaction from gay and anti-gay groups. Won an award. Information present in the text.
  • Retain. I rewrote this to include real-world notability. Brad even thinks I own the episode lol, so of course I think it should be retained.
    • Please tell me more about my thoughts.
• The One After the Superbowl: Highest rated episode of the series. Information present in the text (though figure not referenced).
  • Retain Same as above. I rewrote this to indicate its notability.
    • Well done. Have a biscuit.
• The One with the Prom Video: Official poll rates it the best episode of the series. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect It has lots of info, but it is just fancruft, not real-world notability.
    • Entertainment Weekly and USA Today exist in the real world, as do NBC and AOL (the poll-takers). Joe Garner, the author of the independent published source "Made You Laugh!", and Sangster and Bailey, the authors of the independent published source "Friends Like Us", live in the real world.
• The One with the Princess Leia Fantasy: George Lucas congratulated the producers for the episode. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect - no real-world notability. The idea that this statement: The producers received a letter of appraisal from George Lucas, creator of Star Wars, who congratulated them on the "great" Princess Leia fantasy establishes real-world notability actually made me laugh out loud.
    • George Lucas is a real person.
• The One Where No One's Ready: Official poll rates it third most popular episode but mixed critical reaction. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect real-world notability not asserted.
    • EW exists in the real world as do NBC and AOL (the poll-takers) and Sangster and Bailey.
• The One with the Embryos: Introduces a major storyline brought on by an actresses pregnancy and features a critically praised subplot. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect real-world notability not asserted.
    • Sangster and Bailey, EW and MSNBC exist in the real world.
• The One with Ross's Wedding: An American television series films in front of a foreign studio audience.
  • Redirect real-world notability not asserted. Mostly just production details but nothing that indicates whether the production was somehow notable in its location or use of sets, etc....
    • Those production details are taken from an independent published source, as are the reception from The Independent, EW and Sangster and Bailey.
• The One Hundredth: 100th episode. Won some awards. Information not currently present in the text.
  • Redirect Brad: prior to flagging the episodes, I worked through the entire episode list in conjunction with the awards page at IMDB; I would be surprised if I missed episodes that actually won a major award, although it is possible. If the episode really won an award that's notable and can be sourced, I might change my view.
    • IMDB is not the only source for awards. I'll look into this further.
• The One with All the Thanksgivings: Won some awards. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect as above
    • Sangster and Bailey and EW exist in the real world.
• The One Where Everybody Finds Out: Won some awards. Information not present in the text.
  • Redirect as above
    • I'll look into the awards thing some (this and the hundredth were on that season's "For Your Consideration" tape sent to the Emmys)
• The One After Vegas: Nominated for an award. Plenty of independent coverage.
  • Redirect I do recall that this was one of the few episode-specific award nominations, but nominated ain't winning & there is no assertion of real-world notability.
    • Discovery Channel, Sangster and Bailey and EW exist in the real world.
• The One with the Apothecary Table: Critically mauled. Information present in the text.
  • Possible Retain - Needs a total rewrite, but the inclusion as an example of product-placement may be close to real-world notability. If so, the episode article needs to be about that and not plot and production guff. It would be nice to have additional information.
    • "Plot and production guff" is better known as "context". Besides, there is no production section in this article, which is further proof you don't read these pages before redirecting. If you believe it needs a total rewrite then be bold. Sangster and Bailey and EW are independent published sources.
• The One Where Ross Meets Elizabeth's Dad: Bruce Willis appeared after losing a bet or something, then was nominated for or won an award. Information not present in the text.
  • Redirect - straightforward per the Episode guideline. No real-world notability.
    • Apart from an actor in a union working for free. I'll look into this more.
• The One with Rachel's Big Kiss: Critically mauled. Information not present in the text.
  • Redirect - straightforward per the Episode guideline. No real-world notability.
    • Apart from reviewers being very vocal about it being a ratings gimmick.
• The One Where Rachel Tells...: An example of media affected by September 11. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect - It's just a plot summary.
    • Along with a production and reception section indicating that it is an example of television affected by 9/11. Try reading the article first.
• The One with the Rumor: Lots of independent coverage about its significance.
  • Redirect - umm, panning Brad Pitt is NOT real-world notability. I am unconvinced that this should have passed as a Good Article although before anyone gets preachy about it, recall that GA is conferred by ONE editor's review. I will own, however, that this episode comes close to asserting some notability (lots of award nominations, the hermaphrodite stuff, etc...) so I could be convinced.
    • If the good article process bothers you then please take it up with the relevant Wikiproject. If you do not believe it should have been listed as a good article then please submit it to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.
• The One Where Rachel Has a Baby: Third highest-rated episode of the series, won Jennifer Aniston an award. Some information present in the text.
  • Redirect - straightforward
    • Yes, a straightforward example of someone winning a "Best Actress" Emmy for their performance in a television episode.
• The One with Rachel's Other Sister: Won Christina Applegate an award. Information present in the text.
  • Redirect - straightforward.
    • Yes, a straightforward example of someone winning a "Best Actress" Emmy for their performance in a television episode.
• The Last One (Friends): Series finale of a long-running series. Second highest rated episode of the series. Probably won an award. Information not present in the text.
  • Possible Retain if the award is notable. Otherwise, redirect.
    • I'll look into this more. Brad 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (all replies this timestamp)

Those are just a few.Brad 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm keen to learn your definition of the real world. Brad 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC) And your definition of fancruft for that matter. Brad 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Brad, don't be disingenuous - you don't really need more acronyms thrown your way do you? Episode, Fict, N, etc...? Since you are obviously a big fan and you care a lot, have you considered moving the information to a fan wikia? See Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Relocating_non-notable_fictional_material. There you can provide plot summaries as long as you want, explore the minutiae of every character, etc.. etc... It may be better for your purposes rather than attempting to redact the information on a site that is, as a pillar of its existence 'an out-of-universe source, in which all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective and which must be governed by principles of notability and reliability. Eusebeus 17:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please show me some evidence that I am "obviously a big fan". Please show me some evidence of articles I have made significant contribuitions to in which I "provide plot summaries as long as [I] want" (all plot summaries I have written or copyedited conform to the 10 words/minute guideline). Please show me some evidence of articles I have made significant contributions to in which I "explore the minutiae of every character". All of the above articles in which I have made significant contributions to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Your patronising, arrogant tone will get you nowhere. Any attempt to redirect any of the above articles will be treated as vandalism. Brad 10:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Has this discussion come to its natural end? I checked all changes to the episode articles since October 28, and this was the only encyclopedic change. Most others were minor changes, plot expansions, trivia additions, quote additions, and a redirect-unredirect action on November 14. So, is this a sign to go ahead with redirecting all episodes that currently do not assert their notability? The episode articles listed above can remain for now and be reviewed at a later time. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's redirect as you suggest. Most of this is stuff for wikia or tv.com, not here. Eusebeus (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No opposition in the last three days, so I've started with Season 2, 3 and 4. The other seasons will follow. My rationale was, unless the episode directly asserts its notability either by winning an award or by including significant secondary coverage, it got redirected. Any episode article can be revived anytime if and only if it directly asserts notability as outlined above. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have turned most of season 8 into redirects, although I agree with Brad's note above about the Brad Pitt episode being notable enough for its own episode. i have restored some of Brad's redirects of Season 10 as well, which were undone by admin Ryan Postlesomething. Brad: I am very sorry if my tone caused offense. None was intended. I also notice, btw, that each of the Friends characters has an in-universe fanpage. We should redirect those to a list of Main Characters article. Eusebeus 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All episode articles that do not establish notability or do not contain significant real-world content have been redirected. All former articles can be accessed by following this link. As established, any episode article can be revived if and only if it is expanded to include at least one (sourced!) paragraph for production, and one (sourced!) paragraph for reception. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of takes away from wikipedia being an encyclopedia - which this and other situations prove it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.235.65 (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of List

If there are lists of only certain episodes then why have the whole list. I believe that either all or none should be linked. The only one's which should always have a page is Pilot and the last ones. I think they all should have pages. I have created one but got redirected and have tried to create overs but redirect has messed them up. that is my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs)

Ideally, every episode would have an article detailing the production and reception of the episode. But as (in most cases) such articles do not exist, this list also does not link to such articles. If you want to write an encyclopedic episode article, feel yourself invited to do so (see above). However, per WP:V, If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and the burden of evidence to provide such sources is on the people wishing to write an article. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Friends1

Template:Friends1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (The sibling templates 2 through 10 are co-nominated.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Season Articles

Each season now has its own article, however, it is unclear why this was parsed out into separate articles. Was there consensus to do this? As it stands, these "main" articles are just duplicates of the information here and should probably be AfD' or redirected unless a clearer case can be asserted for their existence. Eusebeus (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. They are not a copy of this article exclusively though, since a paragraph-long synopsis was added to the specific articles, but that alone doesn't seem to indicate that a separate article for each season should exist. I would suggest a general merge, by bringing the synopses into this article, since each season already has its own section here. Later on, if there's an actual need for there to be separate articles — meaning, if there is enough information specific to each season that a breakaway from the main article is justifiable — we can separate them again. But I would not recommend keeping the current naming that was used ("Season X (Friends)"), since it seems to me that this is not the ideal naming for this type of article — something like "Friends (season 1)", as it is done with the American Idol season-specific articles, would be more appropriate. Redux (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now redirected the breakaway articles back. I added in the synopses & then like the village idiot I realised that these had simply been lifted from the main article, so I have reverted back to our original version as the synopses have been restored to the story arc section at Friends. Eusebeus (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the main Friends article as well as the episode list still have links to the now-redirected season articles, which will need to be cleaned up. The links on the List just circular redirect. I'll try delinking them this evening if I get a chance. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

per WP:Article size it would make sense to spin this out into smaller articles. Catchpole (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear suggestion or consensus that a bunch of shorter lists (or ~25 entries /ch) would be better than 1 comprehensive list. And season synopses are comfortably provided at the main article. Indeed, for the purposes of improvement (particularly wrt references), a single article is probably better and will attract more cleanup. Eusebeus (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

as someone who without shame admits to unfamiliarity with this show, I think the reason for division is to permit longer summaries. Ten paragraph summaries of a single episode are indeed a abomination, and one sentence ones equally. This is apparently a notable show and the article is supposed to provide information. The is over-concise. WP is not TV guide, where a one-sentence teaser is appropriate. Its an encyclopedia, and should be informative, not just a topic listing. DGG (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Out-indent) I think this discussion should take place at the main article page. They have had a stable version, including seasonal synopses for a while, so that is probably the best venue for generating consensus. The content fork moved stuff from that main article and I note that it was reverted back within hours. Eusebeus (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Format

How come there is an individual wiki page for each episode of other programs like Family Guy but for Friends we only have this list with limited information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.248 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the Friends episodes do not meet our requirements for notability. Other episode articles have either met those requirements, or they simply have not been cleaned up and properly merged back to their episode lists. Wikipedia is not a television series guide for providing extensive, lengthy plot summaries of episodes. An episode should only get an article if it can establish real world notability through significant coverage in third-party sources (not including listings in TV guide, et al). The Friends episodes couldn't do that and were properly merged by consensus. Also, in the future, when someone asks you stop your wikifying, stop it already. Your continuing after the multiple warnings was extremely annoying, hence the page now being protected from you editing it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to know how Family Guy episodes can 'establish real world notability' but other TV shows can't. It's just that the pages for Family Guy seem to be exactly what you don't want (a TV guide) - it seems a bit inconsistent.

Also, what is 'wikifying'? I have done nothing wrong and I have not been told to stop anything in the past.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.248 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You were told to stop, as per the record on your talk page before you changed IPs. As for Family Guy, didn't say they did establish notability. They probably don't and need to be merged, just no one has done the proposal. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please enlighten me as to the definition of the term 'wikify'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.248 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikify means adding links to wiki articles. They are also called internal links. For example, changing "school" to "[[school]]" is wikifying the word school, resulting in "school" becoming "school".AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and what's wrong with that? Isn't it one of the main ways for navigating Wikipedia? Also, when did anyone tell me to stop doing it?--81.129.27.248 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the links you were adding to the episode titles were inappropriate as they all just come back to this page. Circular links are pointless, and over wikilinking is discouraged. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop doing it. Thank you. for your advice. I will now set up a Wikipedia account and you can be my mentor as I'm not very good but I wish to help.81.129.27.248 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All these articles used to exist, some of us view their restoration as beneficial to the project. Catchpole (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoration requires first establishing notability. Just throwing in circular links is not an attempt at restoration, just excessive wikification. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is ridiculous. Wikipedia has guidelines, not rules. By removing the individual episode you have reduced information on cast lists etc. This significantly reduces Wikipedia's usefulness.

If an individual episode of Friends is not notable, then why is a list of Friends episode titles notable? What harm were the individual episode pages doing? The harm their absence has caused is to waste my time, because amongst other things I, like many other people if other episode guides are to go by, regard Wikipedia as one of the best places on the net to get this information. I'm sorry you already had a vote about this, but remember that Wikipedia guidelines specifically discourages voting as potentially counterproductive, and states they should not be considered binding.

Sort it out, lets not let a set of guidelines hinder the usefulness of wikipedia Ajmayhew (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you guys removed the episode guides? 117.3.36.66 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Profess or Confess

During a city-wide power outage, Rachel falls for the owner of a lost kitten, a dark, attractive Italian guy, which occurs at the same time as Ross wanting to profess his love for Rachel.

Shouldn't this read Confess instead? 90.221.186.217 (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No. --Captain Infinity (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Either would work, but profess is better. Daskill (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why have the individual episode pages been removed?

I believe that this needs to be discussed. Why is it that all episodes of shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons get their own pages and episodes of Friends do not? Friends is as iconic as The Simpsons, and moreso than Family guy. We can't have a rule for one series and a different one for another. Daskill (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following TV series have pages for all their episodes: Futurama, The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, American Dad, Battlestar Galactica (reimagining), Doctor Who, Torchwood...the list could go on and on and on. Friends is at least as notable if not more notable than these series. Why should articles about Friends episodes be forbidden when it is allowed for these other series? We can't have one rule for one thing and another rule for others. Daskill (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Simpsons have episode articles because the editors have shown again and again that the episode articles can be improved to decent standards and beyond.[1][2][3][4][5] Doctor Who has got quite a bunch of Good and Featured episode articles as well.[6] On the other hand, the South Park episode articles are under discussion to get merged for non-notability. I am unable to comment on the other shows, but many of their episode articles don't fulfil basic inclusion standards either and technically shouldn't exist either. You will find the same reasoning in the archives of this talkpage (i.e. cleanup measures) for why many Friends articles no longer exist. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, because the people who were editing the episode guides two years ago didn't do a good enough job of it, no one is allowed to try in future? Daskill (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There was never any talk that episode articles are not allowed in the future and that you may not try. You are entitled (and actually encouraged) to write articles on any episode as long as the resulting articles pass core policies such as WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR, and are long enough to no longer fit into the list of episodes or a season article (WP:SPINOUT). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode articles tend to fail notability. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that fans keep creating them does not justify their presence. Maintaining a good List of episodes page would save editors the trouble of merging many episode articles into a list in the long run. (This happened to Scrubs episodes, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth by Scrubs editors.) / edg ☺ ☭ 14:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with Friends episodes is that there are no DVD commentaries, which makes it hard to provide content for an article. You are allowed to create Friends episode article. If they have more than just a plot and an infobox, then they will be kept. --Maitch (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This bodes poorly for Friends episode articles. One reason The Simpsons episode articles flourish (and even reach GA status) is they often contain at least 5kb of unique, encyclopedic content (excluding plot summary, cast list, succession boxes, and other pro forma content, but counting sections such as Production and Reception), which (per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZE) may justify an article separate from the List of episodes; without such content, there is little reason for a standalone episode article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The existence of DVD commentaries (which do exist on many Region 1 discs) and how long the article can be is irrelevant; what matters is the existence of reliable third-party publications about the individual episodes so that any articles can satisfy notability (reviews, etc). That isn't to say that, just because some Friends episode articles have been redirected, third-party sources definitely don't exist, rather that many articles couldn't be cleaned up to meet notability standards before the TTN-imposed deadline passed. Many episodes from the good years have "last night's TV"-type reviews from newspapers so those articles could be recreated if someone wanted to expand them. Once we start getting into the crap seasons, episode reviews begin to wane and it becomes harder to justify the existence of individual articles (The One with the Rumor is probably the absolute minimum threshold). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—I didn't intend to downplay the need for reliable third-party publications, or set an arbitrary content length. Of all the problems episode articles have, meeting the general notability threshold is the most serious. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll start going through a lot of the episodes over the weekend and see which ones have significant third-party coverage. Of the ones that do, I'll add the info to a "further reading" section and relink the articles on the LoE; the info doesn't necessarily have to be integrated straight away -- the articles just need to pass notability. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really late to this discussion, but I have to said that while I miss the old school pages, the new format is good. I feel it better serves readers as it concisely offers the basics on each episode of the series. Over the ten years the series was on others have gone into the details of each episode (such these folks). I feel that new format allows the wiki to focus time and attention on the episodes that are notable and that folks remember such as the pilot or the prom video. I also feel that this new format avoids opening the cans of wiki-worms such as WP:OR or WP:RS. I hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 11:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Who is Heather? in season 2 description it looks like some one did a huge vandalism. please someone may correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.86.15 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 1 - 10 Extended Cuts (2009) available for purchase anywhere?

Are the Season 1 - 10 Extended Cuts that are listed after Season 10 in the Overview available for purchase anywhere? The date says "Sept 2009" and the edits were made 14 November 2009, but I'm not able to find information on this item. I'd love to buy it if a new 2009 collection has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.195.172 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The one with all the other ones

IMDB lists two episodes that are not in this list [7]: "10.17 - The one with all the other ones: Part 1" & "10.18 - The one with all the other ones: Part 2". These are mentioned as 'specials' in the introduction, but IMDB lists them as proper episodes. Should they be included in the list as 'proper' episodes? 84.196.58.242 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)