Talk:List of Friends episodes

Bruce Willis
The guys have a recurring love of the movie Die Hard. In season six, Ross's girlfriend Elizabeth's dad was "Paul", who is actually Bruce Willis - the star of the Die Hard movies. I think this should be noted somewhere, but I'm not sure where. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the brief description of the episodes been removed?
Why the brief description of the Friends episodes been removed from the page. it helped alot to view the brief idea of each episode. Please resume it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.214.150 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed changes
In case anyone watching this page is unaware, the article has been nominated for featured list status and a discussion is underway at Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1. Some changes made after discussion there involved removing transclusion of season articles (despite it being standard practice), with claims that this is necessary to make the page MOS compliant. There are other and better ways to do this, notably making Episode list itself MOS compliant and, accordingly, I initiated discussions at WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list after failing to get the editor complaining about lack of compliance to do so. In the meantime, the changes made have been reverted by 3 editors, including me. Some of the editors involved in the featured list discussion have involved themselves in the discussion, one even identifying how to make the template compliant. Despite this, two of the editors from the featured list discussion have encouraged the editor who nominated this page to restore his changes, which he did, claiming in his edit summary that the reversions were vandalism, which they were not. However, yesterday changes were made to 9 of the 10 season articles and his changes immediately made this article inconsistent with those articles, which is unnaceptable. While transcluded all articles were consistent so I've reverted to maintain this consistency. I earlier suggested opening a discussion here to discuss the changes, but no attempt to do so has been made and so, in pure frustration, I've decided to do it myself. As it stands now discussion is underway at Template talk:Episode list with a view to removing bolding from episode titles. This is a simple fix. After that a minor change is required to the template to include row scopes as per WP:DTT. Other changes required for MOS compliance can be implemented in season articles at any time. With the template modified there will be no need to add complicated and unnecessary coding to this article at all and transclusion can continue to be used. Accordingly, my recommendation is that there need be no significant changes to this article and we continue to use transclusion, as is standard practice, pending changes to Episode list. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated the col scope changes at each of the season articles. This is required by WP:DTT and doesn't affect anything in any of the articles. I've temporarily used "RTitle" for the episode titles. Once Episode list is amended, we can switch back to using "RTitle". the only thing missing at the moment are the row scopes, which are required in, not this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per NapHit, Matthedwards, Lemonade51 and The Rambling Man (at the FLC linked above), transclusions are not needed. As we've seen, it simply introduces errors and poor formatting.  When reviewed for FL status, it was a simple table, which complied with MOS and ACCESS and had complete information; now, with transclusions restored, it's just a hotchpotch of odd width columns, bad formatting, incorrectly styling, lacking comprehensive information, etc.  How this could be considered "better", I have no idea.  What's the purpose of attempting to be "consistent" with something if the something is rubbish?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, there still seems no effort by the TV project who insist on this approach to fix the missing information, fix the failures to meet MOS, fix the background colour issues. Why it's proper to merge these two part episodes in one part of the season article but not another (therefore creating internally inconsistent season articles that we're being forced to use, ironically, for consistency) is still to be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 May 2012‎  (UTC)
 * Perhaps the TV project isn't aware. Have you raised the issue at Template talk:Episode list or WT:TV? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, you're aware and seem genuinely to believe those edits were actually good (despite the missing data, still missing by the way, and despite the removal of information explicit to particular episodes), and no-one else at the television project seems to care about the MOS as exposed with the MOSBOLD discussion (which has died a quiet death). You're right, MoS is a guideline so the TV project aren't obligated to use it.  But then mandating the transclusion of crap that isn't fit for featured material but at the same time denying it needs to be MoS-compliant is completely unjustifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's ironic about it? I'm not a member of WP:TV. The MOSBOLD discussion will only die if you let it. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The irony is that you say the recent edits to those transcluded templates were good and therefore the simple wikitable we proposed would have been out of step. The simple wikitable would also have been factually accurate (unlike the transclusions), MoS compliant (unlike the transclusions) and formatted correctly (unlike the transclusions.  What you gave as an example of something in favour of using transclusions simply is a magnificent example of why we really shouldn't use transclusions this way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly went wrong? I missed it when it happened and it's impossible to look at previous versions of the page to find the issue because they still transclude the current versions of the season pages. If anyone else is to comment they'll probably want to know what was wrong too. Matthewedwards : Chat  00:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I've tried taking at a look at the individual season articles and they're shambolic. I've even tried editing them but have lost the will to live, and will probably go back and undo them all because it's almost embarrassing to be involved there. I cannot see why a standalone list of episode titles with comprehensive and referenced information shouldn't exist without having to depend on ten other dreadful articles. These edits that User:AussieLegend keeps saying were "erroneously" kept by the original stand-alone list turn out to be really useful. We would still have decent "on/off" formatting. We would still have complete production code information. We would still know which episode was written specifically by which writer. We'd still have equal width columns. We'd be better off without the transclusions. It's profoundly obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would you undo the edits you've made? If you've made appropriate edits leave them. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I've now realised what a disastrous state those articles are in, and am now even more frustrated that, due to transclusion, we can't get a decent FL for the episodes. I found so many issues I had to take a shower.  I can't see a list of Friends episodes being featured in my lifetime if we mandate this odd "transclusion" approach.  I'm also surprised that AussieLegend continues to think that removing information from the various sub-articles would make a list better.  Sure, consistent.  But consistently incorrect.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing about removing information making the season articles better. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I finally found it. Your confirmation that removing information, introducing WP:MOS errors, creating format errors where these things are translcuded etc was considered by you to be better (by virtue of the list being inconsistent, but accurate) than having a standalone list which would have preserved production codes, writers' names, MOS compliance, format excellence etc.  No-one watches the desperately weak season articles, but many would watch a featured list.  It's taken an age to go over those poor articles to find the missing information that you didn't really care about.  I'll ask again, is there a "consistency" guideline I missed?   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What a load of crap. I said nothing there to support your claims. In the first part I explained that because the "acceptable" list didn't include quotation marks I decided to mimic that when I modified the season articles. The second part was all about how restoration of the custom tables made the episode list and season articles inconsistent, which it did. I mentioned one episode, where two episodes were merged, as they were aired back to back as one episode. Nowhere did I say that "removing information from the various sub-articles would make a list better". Stop making things up. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm? I don't remember talking to you about "quotation marks", perhaps you can show me the diff? Secondly, your assertion that the main list was out of kilter because the season articles had been wrecked was an "error" is clear for all to see. Just for clarity, we would still leave a featured list with all the relevant material, correctly formatted, but now we have an incorrect list.  Bad result when we could have a stable, well-maintained, MOS-compliant, elegant list that you (personally) reverted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you just posted the diff. Did you actually bother reading it? The very first sentence of my first post starts with, in response to Matthewedwards, "Neither the 26 April or today's version of the article by Lemonade51 included  quotation marks ." (Emphasis added) As for the main list being out of kilter, yes, that was the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Confused. Allow me repeat the question, the diffs you provided were article space, not talk space, where did we (i.e. you and I) talk about "quotation marks"? And what relevance does that have to your intent to transclude erroneous, incomplete, MOS-deficient templates? The main list was "out of kilter" from the poor articles being transcluded, but actually accurate, MOS-compliant, and formatted correctly.  You don't like that.  How odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "the diffs you provided " - I didn't provide diffs, you did. I simply quoted from the diffs you supplied because you apparently hadn't read them. What I quoted was part of my response to Matthewedwards, who had questioned the lack of quotation marks in the modified articles. That quotation included diffs to changes in the episode list.
 * "where did we (i.e. you and I) talk about "quotation marks"?" - We never did. Let me try to clear this up for you. You erroneously claimed, above, "that AussieLegend continues to think that removing information from the various sub-articles would make a list better", which I never did. As your "proof", you posted diffs to a discussion about quotation marks. You then said "I don't remember talking to you about "quotation marks", which was a peculiar thing to say because it's clear from the diffs that you provided that I was responding to Matthewedwards. I even said that in my reply when I said, "The very first sentence of my first post starts with, in response to Matthewedwards".
 * "And what relevance does that have to your intent to transclude" - Nothing, which was my point. Quotation marks only became involved because you provided a diff about them as proof for your erroneous statement and I pointed out your error.
 * "The main list was "out of kilter" from the poor articles being transcluded...." - The transcluded list was consistent with the season articles. The list became out of kilter when Lemonade51, with your encouragement, restored the custom tables to the article, making it contain content different to the season articles.
 * "but actually accurate" - No, that wasn't the case. Because the season articles had been changed the episode list was no longer accurate. Yes, there were errors in the season articles, but the episode list did not reflect the parts of the episode list that didn't contain errors.
 * "MOS-compliant, and formatted correctly" - Yes, it looked pretty, but it was no longer correct. It wasn't MoS-compliant either. According to Matthewedwards the episode titles should be in quotes - they weren't. The series overview table did not contain scopes. At best, the article was partially MoS compliant. The transcluded version is partially MoS compliant, at least until we get the template changed. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then, we are where we are, with AussieLegend's acceptance that removing information and introducing errors in the various seasons lists, which resulted in the main list being reverted was in error. AussieLegend is on shaky ground, why would keeping correct information be an error? (still not sure about the obsession with "quotation marks", I'm more worried that AussieLegend was cool with removing information from trancluded templates (like production codes, episode writers etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, we are where we are with The Rambling Man, who for some reason keeps talking to people in the third person while continuing to make things up, and posting diffs in support of his claims without actually bothering to read them before posting. When you answer someone directly, as you obviously did, why change your posts to address them in the third person? It just looks rather silly, especially when you make claims that clearly are not true. Really, if you're going to continue like this it makes it very hard to discuss matters rationally. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Summary, you seem to want to mandate the use of translcusion of episode detail (i.e. not summaries, just the non-controversial info like title, producer, writer, prod code). Next up, the translcusions are all changed, some of them removing information, some of them not complying with WP:MOS, some of them simply being inaccurate.  However, in your mind, you think this is better than a standalone list which was in perfectly good order until you reverted it.  Tell me the things I've "made up", and I'll tell you that you've advocated that a list with omissions and failures to comply with MOS.  What is the point of that?  I agree, in an ideal world, these pitiful season articles may amount to something.  In the meantime, I see no logical reason to prevent a list of the episodes moving beyond and being the best we can offer.  You seem wholeheartedly in agreement with that, but in your actions, seem keen to deny that.  Accepting poor edits which remove information and then claiming a list which still lacks the missing information as being in "error" is simply fallacious.  It is increasingly disappointing that you, an established editor, would rather resort to "who addresses whom" in a direct question about where we (i.e. you and I) discussed "quotation marks", where you continually advocated that losing information for the sake of consistency was the right way ahead, where you obfuscate the subject in question, where you believe that adding MOS failures to an article is the way ahead.  Sad, and disappointing.  For what it's worth, the transclusion route is still a dog's dinner.  It's still lacking proper formatting, it's still not compliant with MOS... and is still subject to all the "transclusion" issues I've mentioned here and elsewhere, where people who have no clue (like the IP who merged episodes) do it and undermine WP:WIAFL.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we settle this in WP:dispute resolution noticeboard? I see nothing except condemnation toward each other's edits, and there is no productive results that you anticipate? By the way, why ? At least it is not as bad as List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your point of view George. More than happy to take this elsewhere for resolution.  More than happy to debate the seeming mandate for transclusion of rubbish preventing Wikipedia being excellent.  Let's go!  (Incidentally George, you do know this is more about the transclusion of episode lists than MOSBOLD, right?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you George. I will allow AussieLegend all the time in the world to tell me why, in the real world, we should transclude error-strewn and MOS-deficient sub-articles, rather than opt for a completely excellent, MOS-compliant, reliably-sourced list.  Given the woeful state of the season articles, I see no good reason to wait for them to be even good articles, let alone featured, before trying to bring a featured list candidate to the community.  There are no guidelines or policies that state this should be the approach.  Of course, idealistically, every article linked to from a featured article would also be featured, but WP:FAC doesn't do that, and neither does WP:FLC rely on the sub-lists being brilliant.  In this case, the sub-lists are pathetic, but the main list, per the WP:FLC was supported by community until AussieLegend objected.  I very much look forward to a realistic approach (i.e. one that doesn't rely on a utopian "all articles should be featured" approach, and one which acknowledges that certain edits actually detriment the overall list by introducing errors rather than improve it).  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually George, so far I don't have any problems with the edits that Rambles has made to the articles. Props to him for finally getting off his bum and starting to fix the things he sees as problems, instead of just directing others to do so. It's his attitude here, making things up and then arrogantly talking to me in the third person that I have issue with, especially when he replies directly to me and then changes his posts from first to third person. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ross' or Ross's?
I've always learned that the possessive form of a name that ends in an s does not have an extra s. So Ross' instead of Ross's (seen in the article). Another example is a last name that ends in s, like Jones. One says "Jones' house" instead of "Jones's house". - Paul2520 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I too learned it that way, but in this case, Ross's is the way it's written in the title itself. Additionally, The Chicago Manual of Style (7.16 Possessive of Proper Nouns, Letters, and Numbers) also lists this as the proper way to do it. Ryan8374 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)