Talk:Just Friends

Untitled

I edited the first few paragraphs pretty heavily because I found it lacking and confusing. I'm assuming the controversy part is somewhat true (because of Shallow Hal et al. getting the same sort of attention) but if anyone has any citations, feel free to add. -- Ambientlight 06:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Title/Content mismatch

The content of this article does not match the title of this article. This should be about the movie starring Ryan Reynolds, instead it looks like an article about Green Day. I posted a cleanup tag to try to address this problem, but I'm still new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if I posted the correct one. - The S Show—Preceding undated comment added by The S show (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

name of the nurse

whos that hot nurse?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.39.145 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Ashley Scott ChesterG 18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Her name is Kimberly Holland—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.237.20 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Just Friends.jpg

Image:Just Friends.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

After copyediting the entire plot section, I think it might be good enough to remove the copyedit tag. Please review it and bring up any suggestions. Otherwise, I or someone else should be able to remove it soon. DaffyBridge (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The opposition has a better justification for leaving this as it is than the support does for moving it, despite there being a greater numerical support for the move. (Although after discounting the IP, it's closer to an even split.) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just Friends → Just Friends (film) – Not a main topic. And there are many media with same "Just Friends" name. Even popular movie like Avatar still has to be disambiguated. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The film appears to be the primary topic for this term: It gets several times more page visits (13,655 so far this month) than all the other uses combined (1937 page hits), and Just Friends (disambiguation) gets relatively few visits (186 this month). That is, very few users are continuing from the film article to the dab page, suggesting that the film is indeed the topic being sought by users searching for "Just Friends".--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – invoking primaryname for such an ambiguous title makes no sense. The title Just Friends (film) is less ambiguous, more precise, more recognizable, more consistent with titles for films with ambiguous names, and still plenty concise. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, invoking primary topic for a topic that meets the primary topic criteria makes perfect sense. None of "less ambiguous, more precise, more recognizable, more consistent with titles for films with ambiguous names, and still plenty concise" will help the majority of readers who find a disambiguation page in between them and the sought article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  Unfair much, for other articles? Why didn't we move Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar right away, because that movie was so popular? Think. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 04:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  That situation is different from this one. It is true that Avatar (2009 film) is in high demand (200K+ hits this month), but there are several other topics that are significantly sought out by users. Avatar: The Last Airbender, for example, has 100K+ page views this month, and then there is the primary topic, Avatar, as well as Avatar (computing). Additionally, the primary topic (the use of the term in Hinduism) has been deemed by consensus as culturally and historically significant enough to command primary-topic status despite not being the "most popular" use of the term. In the present case, however, none of the other things called "Just Friends" are particularly significant or in high demand, but the film article is in overwhelmingly high demand compared to all those other uses, and there is, as noted, very little traffic going to the dab page. It makes no sense to force the large majority who want the film article to visit a dab page in order to avoid a minor inconvenience for the small minority who are looking for something else.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  You had me at "that was different". Silvergoat, note that the move discussion(s) at Avatar fairly used the same guidelines and policies we're fairly applying now. If everyone who disagrees with you is unfair, this would have been a technical request, not needing discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Dicklyon 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  But Dicklyon has no guidelines to support his !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Dicklyon. Although I don't regard the 2005 film as a primary topic. For me the primary topic is the colloquial expression, as in no we are not dating we're just friends and its various other forms. The 2005 movie may have a temporary higher google presence, but its just temporary. --Bejnar (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  The colloquial expression doesn't have a Wikipedia article (so doesn't need Wikipedia disambiguation) and doesn't have a capital F (so isn't ambiguous with this title anyway). Neither has long-term educational value, so the "just temporary" argument doesn't hold either. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. The oppose arguments are much stronger than the support arguments here, as pageview stats show clearly that Just Friends is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• Just Friends → Just Friends (2005 film)
• Just Friends (disambiguation) → Just Friends
• Just Friends (album) → Just Friends (Joe Temperley and Jimmy Knepper album)

– Six-and-a-half years have passed since the above 2012 RM and, with 19 entries listed at the Just Friends (disambiguation) page, the 2005 film does not appear to continue maintaining its standing as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The year is needed due to the presence of Just Friends (1993 film). As for Just Friends (album), the disambiguation is incomplete due to Just Friends (Rick Haydon and John Pizzarelli album)     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support no primary here on either count. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support as this is a common phrase with no discernible primary topic. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. We don't determine primary topic based on comparison to common phrases that don't have entries in WP. We compare to the other uses. And based on page view stats, this topic is by far the most likely to be sought by anyone searching with "just friends". [1]. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 23:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support all per nom - no clear primary topic. Also, support the album move, as "the disambiguation is incomplete due to Just Friends (Rick Haydon and John Pizzarelli album)". Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose moving Just Friends. The other pages are viewed so little that obfuscating the only topic that gets views does nothing but hinder readers. I do support the Just Friends (album) move however. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per B2C. This is a classic case of thinking there's no primary topic because there are a lot of entries on the dab page, and it's a DICDEF phrase. The 2005 film seems fairly clearly the most sought-after article on this topic though, as the page views attest, so the current status quo is still correct even if 2012 was six years ago.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.