Talk:Girlfriend/Archive 1

Missing content

 * 1) I see from the the history that most of the content of the March 16th revision was deleted, with an edit comment of "remove dictionary content". It doesn't seem like the content was added to the corresponding Wiktionary entry. Large chunks of the text that was deleted were things like history of usage of the word that seem more appropriate for an encyclopaedia than a dictionary. Not wanting to start an edit war, would it be permissible for this to be added back in? --AlexChurchill 12:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) What's the reason for restricting this article to romantic girlfriends when the other common (in the US) usage exists, of female friends of a female speaker?  --AlexChurchill 12:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * In the absence of comment, I re-added this material.--AlexChurchill 22:46, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) I notice that romantic relationship and sexual relationship both redirect to the same page (!!) Should one of the links be de-wikified, in the absence of a proper article being created for one or the other? --AlexChurchill 12:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Link to Sweetheart
Sweetheart is a dis-ambiguation page. This link cannot be dis-ambiguated, and so what is the best thing to do?? 66.32.242.236 21:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ideally? Elaborate on the usage of "sweetheart" to the extent that it makes a valid and useful encyclopaedia article. However, I'm not sure that's even possible, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Probably the link should be removed; maybe the whole sentence should be removed.--AlexChurchill 22:46, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Merging articles
I wrote a message at Talk:Boyfriend about merging these articles. See that talk page for details. 66.245.98.79 18:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Boyfriend for further discussion. Andrewa 00:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The page for girlfriend is short, I also suggest that the two articles are to be merged together. Pathbinder 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

evidence
Where's the evidence that dating strongly implies sex now, or ever? lysdexia 01:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that this statement is excessively general. It is generally agreed to be the case that the majority of adults who date for a significant length of time (perhaps a month, say) will have started having sex by that time, but there are so many exceptions that I think the statement should be changed or expanded. The exceptions are both due to morals followed by particular groups (Christians, True Love Waits, etc) and individual choices that such a generalisation shouldn't stand. However, in clarifying it we shouldn't turn Wikipedia into a social commentary forum. --AlexChurchill 15:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Vfd problem
According to Vfd, this article will probably have a consensus to keep; whereas Boyfriend will probably have no consensus. Why so?? 66.245.28.46 00:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Often, when two similar articles are nominated on VfD in a row, people will only vote on the first one and not bother with the second (or third etc.). -Sean Curtin 03:00, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Masculine equivalent??
In Wikipedia, it says that this term is commonly used to describe same-gender, non-romantic friends, but that "boyfriend" is not-so-commonly used this way. What, then, is the masculine equivalent?? Georgia guy 23:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, there's no direct male equivalent. Of course, I'm not an authoritative source, so maybe somebody else will help? Meelar (talk) 23:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have an opinion on the use of guyfriend? That's a word I've used for years, to disambiguate between close male friends and male romantic partners, and I'm wondering if that usage has any currency. cky 14:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word bro, or buddy, or boy. As in he is my bro, or he is my boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.115.150 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Womanfriend
I'm a little worried at the non-specific nature of the reference to usage of "womanfriend" as an alternative to "manfriend". Removals on the basis that "I've never heard of it" are possible so long as no source is cited. So long as we rely on subjunctive impressions, we may be in trouble. Slac speak up!  02:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries recognize ladyfriend, but not womanfriend as an alternative. I'm adding to the article that womanfriend is less common than the more common ladyfriend.


 * While I'm no expert, in a women's studies course at my school we learned that many feminists in the 1970s prefered the term womanfriend over the use of girlfriend or ladyfriend. It is still used today, but far less frequently. MicahMN | Talk 03:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Partner
In the synonyms section, I've added partner. I'll try to find a source. If someone else could find one it'd be appreciated. Isopropyl 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First use of the word
Origins and first use of the word "girlfriend", as appears on the Boyfriend article?

Does Wikipedia's attempt to "generalize" everyging sound like political correctness or is it just me?

Japanese
ガアルフレンッド) ガアルフレンッド was poorly written. It should be ガールフレンド. A Google search for ガアルフレンッド brings up no results other than this article, ガアルフレンド brings up about 142 results where as ガールフレン gets about 161,000. ンッド is virtually never seen and ガール is preferred to ガアル though both are pronounced the same way. In addition, the male equivalent would be "ボーイフレンド", not ボイフレンド. The male equivalent of kanojo 彼女 is kareshi 彼氏.

I take issue with the statement that ガールフレンド in Japanese has no romantic connotations. I lived there for eight years from 1994-2002, and I saw both romantic and non-romantic usages.

I'm also pretty sure all this is incorrect. ガールフレンド often means the same as in English. 彼女 mostly just means she/her/that woman etc... There might be a difference between usage in young Japanese and older Japanese - we need a Japanese expert here!--Hontogaichiban 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a resident of Japan and am currently sitting in a room full of Japanese people. A quick chat with everyone tells me not only does ガールフレンド strongly contain a 恋人 (lover) meaning, but it is an infrequently used word. I don't believe a section on the Japanese use belongs here -- at best, it belongs in the List of gairaigo and wasei-eigo terms. Also wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially an English-Japanese dictionary, and again especially for an infrequently used word. My humble opinion. clay 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I took issue with this section as well and based on the consensus here, have removed it. QVanillaQ 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Girlfriend Afd status
I think it's about time we need an Afd template for the nominations similar to one of GNAA. Any objections?? Georgia guy 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What objections do you have?? Georgia guy 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

'Friend girl?!'
"Sometimes, the phrase girl friend (with a space) or friend girl is used to avoid confusion with the romantic meaning."

I am an English native speaker and I have never heard of the expression "friend girl". Please cite a reference. --Thoughtcat 14:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do a Google search. Georgia guy 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A Google search is not a reference, as a wisecrack is not an answer for a justified question. A search on "friend girl" (using the quotes) reveals nothing of relevance. 124.86.11.225 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto on the above. Put it back in if you can produce a reference, but I'm taking it out until then. QVanillaQ 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced template
I want to know if there is any reason to allow un-registered Wikipedians to add the unreferenced template. Georgia guy 17:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you know of a written rule on Wikipedia that says it's unallowed, you're welcome to make the revert as violation of stated Wikipedia policy. 124.86.11.225 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge??

 * How should the new merged article be titled?? Georgia guy 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be merged at all --Rubber cat 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NO!!!! --70.124.132.176 04:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Possibly with sweetheart. It will make for a more gender-inclusive article that takes boyfriends, girlfriends, and transgendered sweeties into consideration. Morganfitzp 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK so we have articles for each and every pokemon but girlfriend and boyfriend need to be merged?? --Rubber cat 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This should definitely not be merged. They're different concepts. Voretus  talk  14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No.


 * can the in popular culture section be removed from this article

can it be removed from every article actually

Pic removed
Why was the picture, captioned "My girlfriend" removed? Privacy? Impracticality? --Maier 03 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, because it's Stephanie Pakrul . . . Slac speak up! 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know who she was--Maier 03 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
I suggest that someone should remove the popular culture section. There are probably innumberable references to girlfriends in popular culture. Even the ones on the list are not that notable. Andy120290 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. That section is a nonsense. Slac speak up! 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate
When used by a girl or woman about another female in a non-sexual, non-romantic context, the 2-word form "girl friend" is usually used to avoid confusion with the romantic meaning, as with "boy friend" when used by males to describe their non-romantic male friends.

Baloney. Women regularly use the word "girlfriend" to describe their platonic female friends, but men never use the word "boyfriend" to describe equivalent relationships between male friends. This is a quirk of our language. marbeh raglaim 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. Check Merriam-Webster.  The online version lists both meanings under "girlfriend" and does not have an entry for "girl friend".  If no one can provide a reference for this claim, it should be deleted. 129.27.202.101 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one objected, I have removed most of the "girl friend" text but left text that said that people sometimes use "girl friend" to disambiguate. 129.27.202.101 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Magical Girlfriend?
Why is a link to a definition of some cartoon in here? It doesn't make sense that anyone would need this. 205.206.239.158 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
"Boo boo kitty fuck" looks like vandalism to me. Any references for this? 75.37.19.44 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's your reference (but don't put it back!) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261392/quotes 129.27.237.29 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't help me to get a girlfriend at all. So much for being a neutral reprository of knowledge. I'm sad that this article is here to stay. The article on golf tells you how to play golf. I'm sure that the article on oil can somehow help you to aquire oil. But why not the article on girlfriends? >=( 76.84.191.230 (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) AnAngryBachelor

Merge proposal (disambiguation)
I'm initiating the formal merge process (not for the first time, by the looks of things) following the failed AfD (see link above). The AfD was closed "Speedy Keep" as a bad-faith (WP:POINT) nomination, and therefore can't be re-nominated for six months: however, the closing admin's comment was "If the nominator wants it to be turned into dab page, then they should do so." I'm not the original nominator, but I'm more than happy to take up the running on his behalf.

This page is little more than a dictionary definition, which we already have at the top of the dab page. I'm sure that an explanation of the difference between "girlfriend" and "girl friend" wouldn't require more than one extra sentence, and I don't see what additional content this article has at the moment. The last genuine AfD was the third one (again, see above), closed in April 2006 with a "Keep" result - but many of the "Keep" opinions were along the lines of "potential for improvement". I don't believe that the article has such potential, and, even if I'm wrong on that point, I don't see any evidence that any improvement has occurred. I'm therefore proposing that "Girlfriend" becomes a dab page, with the content that's now at Girlfriend (disambiguation).
 * Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy oppose per WP:SNOW. Nonsense. Please make concrete suggestions to improve the article or move onto an article you feel you can add positively to. Disrupting a disambiguous page is also WP:POINTy. Benjiboi 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider the above to be a concrete suggestion to improve the _encyclopedia_ by eliminating an article which is merely a dictionary definition with a fancy infobox. See WP:DICDEF. Tevildo (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've restored the mergefrom tag; this discussion should continue until a consensus is reached. At the moment, we have one opinion on either side - let's see what other people think before deciding. Tevildo (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge for two reasons. This article has survived seven AfD nominations.  Assuming good faith but this merge proposal looks suspiciously like a yet another attempt to effectively delete the article by turning it into a disambiguation page, and thus avoiding another unnecessary AfD discussion that is very unlikely to succeed. However, in any case, the article is not a dictionary definition, despite containing definitions as all, or most articles do. It is an article about different relationships and concepts associated with the term, and contains citations, cultural references, and external references, rather than just defining the term. It clearly far exceeds any WP:DICDEF criteria in scope. Characterizing the article as a definition with a fancy infobox makes no sense at all. If this discussion were an AfD, it would be a speedy keep, IMHO.  — Becksguy (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just one point on the AfD history.  #1 and #2 were decided under the far more relaxed regime of 2004 and 2005.  #3 and #4 are genuine, I admit, although many of the arguments in #4 were along the lines of "This has already survived AfD": I would remind everyone that neither stare decisis nor estoppel per rem judicatem apply to AfD.  #5 was speedied for being within the six-month period for renomination which applied at the time.  #6 was speedied for being "out of process", although no more details are given.  #7 was admittedly a bad-faith nomination.  I'd ask anyone referring to previous AfDs to confine themselves to #3 and #4, the last occasions on which the point of notability was actually _argued_.  That being said, Benjiboi has made some major improvements to the article over the past few hours; perhaps that's what it's needed over the past four years, and this may be the last time its validity is questioned. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are quite correct that not all of these previous AfDs are as useful as some in terms of in-depth discussion on the issues. However, all seven do qualify as attempts to delete the article, which was part of my argument. I'm not going to comment on the legal doctrines or concepts you raised, since I'm not a lawyer. Yes, Benjiboi has done significant and major work on improving the article, as he always does. Part of the systemic problem is that Articles for Deletion is not supposed to be a process to improve an article to the point of addressing the concerns raised in the AfD (as it clearly says), yet that is a by-product of the process, as in article rescue editing. I would rather see more tendency and energy spent to improve articles than to prune them, but that's a subject for another place. I would also believe and agree that this article has improved to the point that it hopefully no longer should be questioned. Does this mean that you are now willing to agree to removal of the, , and  tags based on the improvement? — Becksguy (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (disambiguation)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merge of Girlfriend into Girlfriend (disambiguation). Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.  

The result was Oppose. As the article just came out of its 7th AfD, proposing to merge it the day after said AfD is nothing more than gaming the system, a complete violation of guideline and a complete disregard and devaluing of process. I'd warn editors that this is disruption and abuse. 7 times, the consensus has held that this article stands on its own merits. That consensus should be respected rather than gamed. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm initiating the formal merge process (not for the first time, by the looks of things) following the failed AfD (see link above). The AfD was closed "Speedy Keep" as a bad-faith (WP:POINT) nomination, and therefore can't be re-nominated for six months: however, the closing admin's comment was "If the nominator wants it to be turned into dab page, then they should do so." I'm not the original nominator, but I'm more than happy to take up the running on his behalf.

This page is little more than a dictionary definition, which we already have at the top of the dab page. I'm sure that an explanation of the difference between "girlfriend" and "girl friend" wouldn't require more than one extra sentence, and I don't see what additional content this article has at the moment. The last genuine AfD was the third one (again, see above), closed in April 2006 with a "Keep" result - but many of the "Keep" opinions were along the lines of "potential for improvement". I don't believe that the article has such potential, and, even if I'm wrong on that point, I don't see any evidence that any improvement has occurred. I'm therefore proposing that "Girlfriend" becomes a dab page, with the content that's now at Girlfriend (disambiguation).
 * Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy oppose per WP:SNOW. Nonsense. Please make concrete suggestions to improve the article or move onto an article you feel you can add positively to. Disrupting a disambiguous page is also WP:POINTy. Benjiboi 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider the above to be a concrete suggestion to improve the _encyclopedia_ by eliminating an article which is merely a dictionary definition with a fancy infobox. See WP:DICDEF. Tevildo (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've restored the mergefrom tag; this discussion should continue until a consensus is reached. At the moment, we have one opinion on either side - let's see what other people think before deciding. Tevildo (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge for two reasons. This article has survived seven AfD nominations.  Assuming good faith but this merge proposal looks suspiciously like a yet another attempt to effectively delete the article by turning it into a disambiguation page, and thus avoiding another unnecessary AfD discussion that is very unlikely to succeed. However, in any case, the article is not a dictionary definition, despite containing definitions as all, or most articles do. It is an article about different relationships and concepts associated with the term, and contains citations, cultural references, and external references, rather than just defining the term. It clearly far exceeds any WP:DICDEF criteria in scope. Characterizing the article as a definition with a fancy infobox makes no sense at all. If this discussion were an AfD, it would be a speedy keep, IMHO.  — Becksguy (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just one point on the AfD history.  #1 and #2 were decided under the far more relaxed regime of 2004 and 2005.  #3 and #4 are genuine, I admit, although many of the arguments in #4 were along the lines of "This has already survived AfD": I would remind everyone that neither stare decisis nor estoppel per rem judicatem apply to AfD.  #5 was speedied for being within the six-month period for renomination which applied at the time.  #6 was speedied for being "out of process", although no more details are given.  #7 was admittedly a bad-faith nomination.  I'd ask anyone referring to previous AfDs to confine themselves to #3 and #4, the last occasions on which the point of notability was actually _argued_.  That being said, Benjiboi has made some major improvements to the article over the past few hours; perhaps that's what it's needed over the past four years, and this may be the last time its validity is questioned. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are quite correct that not all of these previous AfDs are as useful as some in terms of in-depth discussion on the issues. However, all seven do qualify as attempts to delete the article, which was part of my argument. I'm not going to comment on the legal doctrines or concepts you raised, since I'm not a lawyer. Yes, Benjiboi has done significant and major work on improving the article, as he always does. Part of the systemic problem is that Articles for Deletion is not supposed to be a process to improve an article to the point of addressing the concerns raised in the AfD (as it clearly says), yet that is a by-product of the process, as in article rescue editing. I would rather see more tendency and energy spent to improve articles than to prune them, but that's a subject for another place. I would also believe and agree that this article has improved to the point that it hopefully no longer should be questioned. Does this mean that you are now willing to agree to removal of the, , and  tags based on the improvement? — Becksguy (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Regardless of when the AfDs took place, they are still official AfDs on record for this article. 7 times now, this article has passed AfD. AfD certainly trumps any merge as AfD has said 7 times that this article stands on its own merits. As such, I am speedy closing this discussion. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 10:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Gap?
Why is there such a big gap between the lead and the first section?  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a formatting issue. If the lede is lengthened (which it should be) it should eliminate the problem. If anyone wants to add to the lede see WP:LEDE for suggestions, in essence the lede should be able to stand alone as a mini article and summarize the content. Benjiboi 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a formatting template which I've removed, it can be re-added if needed. Benjiboi 05:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Much betterer, Benji. — Becksguy (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Girlfriend Meaning
I am getting a little concerned that there are some people on here who are "trying" to change the way people asume of the word Girlfriend. Girlfriend (as a dictionary definition out of Collins) clearly states, a female friend or "A female in a non marital romantic relationship with ref. usually a male". Stop trying to change the optinion people have on the word. For some reason, I don't know why some people can't contemplate the word being used in a romantic sense. For heaven, sake a Girlfriend is a Female partner in a non-marital romantic relationship! --Steven Hipkins (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sexual relationships between males and their girlfriends are common (especially in the West, though not always the rule). In such cases, as these relationships are based on lust and selfish interests, the term "girlfriend" may also be a synonym for "prostitute", as per traditional Asian culture, because unless the boyfriend pampers the girl and supplies her various material goods for her enjoyment (cash, gifts, luxuries, status etc. also included), no girl is actually interested in a relationship with a boy. In other words, a girlfriend often (if not always) provides sexual enjoyment to her boyfriend for "payment" (not necessarily money). This is the bare truth of this material world. So in principle, how is a girlfriend different from a prostitute? What do others think about this?59.96.226.226 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also since removed the picture, which is some what inappropriate to the article and totally doesn't have any correspondance to the article itself. Nice thought though, if we are going to have a picture of it, the boyfriend article needs a pictures of 2 males together in the same context - as it has the same meaning. --Steven Hipkins (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're wrong on both counts. A girlfriend can be and is used as just a girlfriend and the photo demonstrates that the two women pictured can be interpreted both ways. Also the term is used in LGBT cultures for people who aren't female - this may be true elsewhere as well. Benjiboi 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disagree with you - you keep removing EVERY single mention that it is to with a relationship with a male, why can I ask, are you doing this - does this sentence make you squirm - "My Girlfriend is Beautiful". I bet it does because for some reason, you can't take that the word girlfriend means that it's a non marital romantic relationship with a male. --Steven Hipkins (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this edit war now for quite a while and it does amuse me. Unfortunately, I think you are both getting no-where so i'm going to add a few comments. It seems thar Benjiboy is trying to narrow-cast as so to speak this article, making it into a pro-female article which is undoubtably wrong. A Girlfriend is a female in a romantic relationship or sometimes is used to describe a female friend. I have found that 99% of the time the term "Girlfriend" is used to describe the woman who is in a non-marrital relationship with a male - and extremely rarely a woman (and I agree that shouldn't be over looked, but to make the term look like it is used more often than it is just silly!). I agree with Stephen Hipkiss's edits, but not the removal of the picture - although a man and a woman together could also be added to explain the other use of the term. I think you should both stop arguing and messing up the article. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for AGF there but no, my primary experience with the term is with gay men using it to refer to each other and people mocking them for doing so. So, I agree with your latest nuanced edits but let's save the mind meld for some other time. Benjiboi 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article top disambiguation tag is inappropriate here—as it is cast—as this is an article about all the various human relationships and context associated with the term girlfriend, not just the male-female romantic one. The disambig page does not point to any other article with meanings even remotely connected with this one, as all the pointers are to articles about records, movies, bands, etc. The DAB needs to be removed, or edited to change the implication that this article is just about girlfriend as a M-F romantic one. See also the seven AfDs and merge proposal. — Becksguy (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it's there for any reader who types in 'girlfriend' whether looking for the album, a book or an explanation. Benjiboi 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the part I was concerned about was the phrase: This article is about a female partner. I will change it to which is a WP:NPOV and generic DAB tag pointing to the DAB page. — Becksguy (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. Benjiboi 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Benjiboy, so you have never heard the word girlfriend used to describe a female partner who is in a romantic relationship with a male? Thats obserred! It's the most widely used conotation of the word, a female who is in a romantic relationship with a woman is called his "Girlfriend". What do you think the word Boyfriend means then? --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing the bickering over "girlfriend"! lol Girlfriend can be: The best thing to do is leave out the gender specific relationship language and just leave it with it's generic definition as I did in the lede. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a man's significant romantic sexual other with whom he's not married to
 * 2) a man's friend, not of a sexual or romantic nature
 * 3) a girl's significant romantic sexual other.. ever heard of lesbians?
 * 4) a girl's friend, not of a sexual or romantic nature
 * 5) a gay man's male friend, not of a sexual or romantic nature (I know, sadly, many gay men do call their "besties" girlfriend)


 * Gothgirlangel1981, I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I basically agree with Allstarecho's assessment above. The term is used to cover multiple genders and sexualities. Benjiboi 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To add to the above Allstar and Benjiboi comments: The article lede actually now says: Girlfriend is a term that can refer to either a female partner in a non-marital romantic relationship or a female non-intimate friend. That places the common mainstream cultural meaning of girlfriend first, ie - a male-female romantic relationship. As it should be. Then the first sentence of the "Scope" section says: The term is most commonly used to describe any female person who is in a romantic relationship with another person. I don't believe anyone here disputes the mainstream meaning of the term, or thinks it should be demoted. However, it's not the only meaning, as has been explained, and that's something the article should cover, and does, otherwise it would be WP:POV. So what's the problem? I suggest that we should agree to mark this discussion thread as resolved, and move on to other stuff. — Becksguy (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Benjiboy, I don't understand where your coming from because you were basically saying I was wrong and you didn't know the term was used to describe a female partner in a romantic relationship - most commonly a male, his Girlfriend. To be perfectly honest I think there are more "Girlfriends" of male partners than female partners, i'm not saying it should be overlooked - but it seems you are trying to make a small population seem larger than it is. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since my last edits, I am now happy as to how the article is layed out. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article's pictures look like vanity shots, and te caption are incredibly covoluded to read. "these are two people! they may or may no tbe a couple!" need to be rewritten so as to read more fluidly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.218.128 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

a man's friend who's a girl by gender, not of a sexual or romantic nature Xolo master (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

History of the word
An article in The Times, June 26, 2008, headed "Pillow Talk: Prince William and Kate Middleton to wed?" http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article4213432.ece

“girlfriend” - a title first used by Elgiva, future wife of Edmund the Magnificent, in 938, and since given sparingly to royal squeezes only on the advice of the Knights of the Garter.

This might have been made up by the person writing the article, or it might be correct. I do not know, but find it interesting. I also do not know the correct way to insert such information into the Wikipedia entry, and my previous attempts at editing were removed. Norm Tered (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Traps: African American" :

Edit notice debate
The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures do not illustrate relationships
Photographs of people standing together at some distance do not indicate relationships. Nor do they illustrate a global point of view. Nor do they illustrate a historical perspective. Therefore the photos are either pointless, or misleading, and were removed. Also, I noted in a similar situation, the photos are being used to sneak pictures of personal friends, or of editors themselves (or possibly of enemies) into articles. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For people who don't speak English as their first language, pictures are extremely useful. The inclusion of images in this article will help our readers to understand the meaning of the word girlfriend, and also to illustrate the nuance of girl friends (with the space). Also, in a purely technical sense, photographs of people standing together at some distance do indeed indicate relationship. Relationship is an incredibly broad word. (Now somebody needs to troutwhack me for a most egregious pun.) ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree whole-heartedly with the original poster here and have removed the irrelevant pictures. ahpook (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed a photo of a woman and man because there is no source indicating their relationship. They could be brother or sister or could be husband and wife. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will you guys leave my unbolding of "wedlock" out of your edit war? It is very easy to only revert the change that you disagree with instead of bolding wedlock which per WP:BOLD should not be bolded since it very obviously redirects to marriage. Sjö (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

exclusive, serious, committed or long-term relationship
These terms are used in this page but corresponding relationship pages exist. Surely if they are listed as a type of relationship on a page then these relationships should have their own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.111 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

History
This article lacks what is probably the most important information required for such articles: the history of the emergence of the term. When it was first used, when it was included to the dictionaries etc. Netrat (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence
Methods of attracting a partner to achieve girlfriend/boyfriend status are often varied and have been a topic of much discussion amongst both males and females, although methods and motives vary wildly.

This sentence seems out of place enough in intro as it is, without the dangerously-close-to-sexist cherry on top of linking "methods and motives vary wildly" to Gender differences. Laïka 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)