Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of errors and inconsistencies in Friends


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was merge and redirect, not because I think any of this can be kept, but I find it conceivable that something in this list isn't OR and can be sourced. I didn't go through every single thing, but as it stands almost everything on this list is OR ("Oh, yeah, remeber that time in the episode about the cats when they went to get bottled water out of the refrigerator, there was a tulip on the windowsill and when they came back it was a rose! Oh, wait, you don't remember that?  I do!" See the problem?). Unless there is a third-party source spelling these things out, it shouldn't be in WP at all. Like I said, though, instead of deleting it outright, I'll put it back into Friends so the history won't be lost, and anything recoverable can be recovered. --- Deville (Talk) 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

List of errors and inconsistencies in Friends
Honestly i think its a useful page, i dont see why u all say its made up Rank listcruft. Pretty much the definition of unencyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you have just merged it? Like I just did? PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it was just removed from the Friends page, as detailed in the edit summary immediately before your restoration. It doesn't belong there or in its own article because it is a pile of unencyclopedic fancruft. Opabinia regalis 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you merge the individual list items into the episode pages? It seems that much of them have the same info duplicated already, so maybe it is more appropriate there. Alienmercy 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I originally removed it from the Friends article. There are a million other places for lists like this, but I don't think WP should be one of them. It's potentially limitless and original research. GrahameS 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep provided each can be provided with a source so it isn't considered OR. IMDB probably has some on their site.  I can see how this would be interesting and useful for someone to look up for any popular show. VegaDark 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep Should sources be provided, otherwise weak delete. --User:Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft is simply what the article is. -RobJ1981 08:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, ridiculous cruftiness. Should we have one of these for every long-running TV show? Andrew Levine 09:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I realize this is completely not based on policy, but it simply isn't encyclopedic. If we have separate articles on the episodes, I would support merging items there. Not sure how to satisfy the GFDL in that case. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep and with VegaDark & Arnzy on this. The idea that because it is a list it should be removed seems a rather hard position given the number of lists on Wiki. Nigel  (Talk) 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that it's a list, but rather that it's a list of little encyclopedic value. Andrew Levine 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken and not meant too strongly - however there is for example a list of such errors for MASH (tv) within the article (and no there should not be one for every long running show). How much is article length/readability an issue. I could be neutral.  Nigel  (Talk) 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep I think some people find this type of information useful (e.g. Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon), although I think it could be presented in a more encyclopedic way. At the very least, it should be merged somewhere else, but if others have problems with that, I don't mind it having its own article. Alienmercy 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Excessive list of trivia. Wickethewok 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - should be cleaned up. I would suggest that simple mistakes to do with hair and clothes should be moved elsewhere. --Nydas 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is unverified original research. It shouldn't even be merged unless it gets sourced.--Isotope23 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is unencyclopedic. Fans can compile such huge lists of trivia elsewhere. Rohirok 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, unencyclopedia, this is not imdb, the reasons abound.-Kmaguir1 09:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the precedent set by the deletion of the similar article regarding Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others above. Crabapplecove 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge all of these into the Trivia sections of the appropriate episodes. (Too many of them have no back-links as it is.) --Dennette 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of this constitutes things like "the prop moved between shots" or "the wardrope department made a slight mistake". There are some notable major points - e.g. Ben seems to completely disappear in the last two series or Phoebe's various family members seem to get forgotten (e.g. she doesn't seem to tell her father that she knows Frank Jr.) which does make a difference given how much is often made of her unconventional upbringing but this is of a different order to what's listed here. And a list like this tends to fill up with individual observations from the shows. Furthermore there are too many "this may not be an error" type entries - e.g. the repeated claims that the first episode may not be canon. Timrollpickering 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All statistics point out how it wasn't the most followed sitcom or its finale had x-million less viewers than "this other event". But they forget that these statistics were for US only. In the international arena Friends are a fenomenon that shaped the 90' and 00'. WP should not delete easily material related to it.

Comment
If this page is to stay I think it needs some serious overhauling. Things like a prop moving between shots, a stagehand coming into view or even an actor's hair getting longer/shorter due to consecutive episodes being filmed apart really should go on the individual episode pages if anywhere and this page should be kept for major inconsistencies across the series (e.g. the way their ages and birthdays jump all over, the way some of Phoebe's family appear and disappear or that we see Chandler seemingly introduced to Rachel for the first time on three separate occasions). I'm also not sure the "this one-liner contradicts that one-liner" type errors are terribly noticable, or for that matter "this actor gets mentioned in one episode but plays a character later on" when the show itself shows there are people who are dead ringers for each other around (i.e. Ross and Russ). Timrollpickering 03:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.