This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friends article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 365 days

Template:Vital article

	Friends has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 12, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed February 21, 2009 Good article nominee Listed February 6, 2018 Good article reassessment Kept A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 6, 2023. Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Romance Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Friends High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Friends task force (assessed as Top-importance). United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: May 23 to 29, 2021 May 30 to June 5, 2021

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from ((WAP assignment)) on 14:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: SRhum11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of sources that Friends experiencing racial issues. I was considering to put "Racial Controversies" as a section in the article.

• David Schwimmer's Tweet (Friends vs Living Single). ^[1]
• Marta Kauffman's lack of diversity. ^[2]

Any suggestions? Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. I'm guessing that because the comment is over a year old and there isn't any of this in the article that you came to same conclusion already, but Marta Kauffman is in the news again[1] and some might attempt to reconsider the idea. It can be fun to take frivolous things and pretend to analyse them seriously, but it is a bad idea to judge a tv show from decades ago by current standards, and this encyclopedia article should not give it any more attention than it has already got. Friends owes much to Cheers and the genre of sitcoms as a whole (amongst other influences^[3]). Also WP:MEDIUM is not a reliable source. It is a remarkable achievement that Friends is still relevant enough for this discussion to even happen, it is not like anyone complains about the lack of diversity in Fraiser. It is a triumph that people see Friends as too homogenous rather than a change from the usual in television. It would be inappropriate and undue to get distracted by recently invented controversies. The show that ran for ten years, it was covered in great depth and breath, and this encyclopedia article could do so much better if editors wanted to do more about the Production or the Cultural impact of the show. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead section please replace X "The sitcom's cast members returned for a reunion special aired on HBO Max on May 27, 2021." with Y "" ie delete the text. (The text was added before the special aired[2] and rephrased after so a clean revert is unlikely to be possible. Not important but I did check.)

The reunion is only a very small part of the show and small part of this article so should not be highlighted in the WP:LEAD section. There was a whole spin-off series Joey with 48 episodes and doesn't even get mentioned in the lead, and it shouldn't, but neither should the one off reunion episode. It is WP:UNDUE to highlight a single "behind the scenes" episode in the lead (it is not even an real episode of the show). It might have seemed important because it was recent but compared to the 10 ears of the show and 236 it is hardly important at all. -- 109.77.205.32 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the line about the reunion from the intro would a conservative change to this encyclopedia article, restoring the much longer established status quo, bringing the article back to be more like the version when it was reassessed for GA status in 2018. Shouldn't editors be explaining why the reunion episode deserves so much special emphasis? Why give so much weight to a tiny amount in proportion to a show with a ten year run and hundreds of episodes? (It is not even a narrative episode, it is only a behind the scenes special.) By all means include it in the article body and with the Production section but why give it unnecessary emphasis in the lead?) How exactly am I supposed to gain consensus for this minor change? Anyone? -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi there,

In the References section, the following should be removed:

1. 178, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 190, 193, 196, 199, 202. All link to pages which no longer exist. They all redirect to the homepage. MattSmilesHN (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: We normally do not removed references from article. I have ran the article through IABot and archived the references. However, you're free to find newer reliable sources, include them here, and request it to be replace/update. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is wrong; the relative clause is defining, hence there should not be a comma. Why is ist defining? Because the set of possible referents of an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman differs from that of an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004. -- UKoch (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have missed the defining bit. Its name. Friends. A defining relative clause contains information that is essential to understand what the subject is. You don't need to know the dates it aired to know what sitcom is being discussed.

If there were another sitcom called friends that was created by Crane and Koffman that did not air on those dates, you'd be right. I don't think there is.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See examples to show the point:

'This article is about an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman'

More info needed. So

that/ which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004

becomes defining. However...

This article is about Friends, an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman

No more info needed. So

, which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004,

NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/relative-clauses-defining-and-non-definingNEDOCHAN (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NEDOCHAN, thanks for your answer. You wrote:

A defining relative clause contains information that is essential to understand what the subject is.

Not the subject, but the antecedent of the relative clause. This antecedent isn't Friends, but an American television sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman.

Your second example above is wrong for the same reason: You're going beyond the noun phrase that consists of the antecedent and the relative clause.

-- UKoch (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. You can go wherever you like. As per the source I've given.

We use defining relative clauses to give essential information about someone or something – information that we need in order to understand what or who is being referred to.

This is rarely the case when you've named the thing in question already. Defining or non-defining clauses are exactly that. The information viz the airing dates is not required to understand who or what is being referred to.

As for going beyond the noun phrase, I should point out that that's the opposite of what I've done. I've gone before it. To where the definition takes place. You can't ignore the name in order to make the noun phrase essential. Understanding who or what the head noun refers to is the point. The head noun is absolutely relevant. Again, see the Cambridge example I've posted. You'll see the head nouns require more info in the DRC examples. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The antecedent is 'Friends is an American sitcom' not 'an American sitcom'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is a request to change the exact premiere/finale air dates in the lead section to general month/year dates a la this edit 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I formally retract this request per Geraldo Perez. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done (edit conflict) Infobox summarizes what is in the lead and article, it doesn't replace it. General practice is to put the full dates in the lead when known and sourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the antecedent of the pronoun he in this word string: "Ross, who has had a crush on Rachel since high school, often attempts to declare his feelings for her. However many obstacles stand in his way, including his insecurities, Rachel dating an Italian neighbour named Paolo, and the fact that he is expecting a baby with his lesbian ex-wife, Carol, who gives birth to Ben later in the season. Does he refer to Paolo, closest antecedent? (AltheaCase (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change ‘barista’ to ‘owner’ when referring to Gunther 2A00:23C7:880B:6201:4DD6:FF8C:9DED:646C (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: did you miss the part that says "at one point he becomes the manager of the coffee house"? M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode grid at the beginning of the article, "The Reunion" - despite being a clickable link - doesn't link to anything. Can someone fix this so it goes to Friends: The Reunion - Wikipedia as intended? 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both links to the reunion article work fine for me. Callmemirela 🍁 18:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three or more links, not just two. Two of them work fine for me too. The one in the sidebar works fine. The one in the subsection about the Reunion works fine. But the one I'm speaking about (that doesn't work) is the one in the grid under Season Synopsis. When I click on that, the name in the URL changes but it does not actually load the article. If it's just an issue with my browser, then that doesn't explain why the other two links work fine. So I think there is an issue with that one. Can you double check the link in the grid I mention? Can someone else too? 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The same goes for the other seasons. I don't have access to a computer at the moment. If somebody doesn't fix it for me, I'll do it in less than an hour. Callmemirela 🍁 18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd fix it (I edit as an IP user) but I can't edit this article without an account. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know in the meantime if the same happens for other links and the table at List of Friends episodes. Callmemirela 🍁 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems ok. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. Let me know if it works on your end now. Callmemirela 🍁 19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems to be working fine now. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:4432:6ADC:1D07:7C55 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Friends be renamed and moved to Friends (TV series). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Friends → Friends (TV series) – Love the show, but "Friends" should redirect to Friendship. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For the record, this was discussed at Talk:Friends (disambiguation) in 2019, so basically I'll repeat myself. This page gets millions of views per year and so I think it is what readers want for this term and moving it would not improve the encyclopedia. I didn't support the move in the last discussion, but the DAB page as primary, I can see why someone would think that. The WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT proposal here is an AWFUL idea, this page is extremely highly viewed, way more than Friendship, no evidence anyone would want that! --Quiz shows 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Quiz shows Look at WP:NWFCTM. What's more significant, friendship which has been around for millions of years, or a 30 year old TV show. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but move to Friends (1994 TV series) - due to other series with that name (WP:INCDAB), and per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (everyday usage and long-term significance). A TV show never deserves primary status over an everyday term from which it inherits its meaning - view counts be damned. Just like any corporate creation, we should follow the apple/Apple Inc. precedent. I am fine with waiting to repoint the leftover redirect for 30 days after the TV show article has been moved, to allow external search engines to catch up. After this move, this page will still get is "millions of views" because that's how external search engines work. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This discussion has been had before. I don't think anything major has changed in four years, and the page views for this being the primary topic is convincing enough for me. Ss112 18:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A wise man said at the previous RM: "Nothing astonishing here as far as I can see. Friends was viewed five million times last year; its daily average is almost as much as the total amount of views Friends (disambiguation) gets in twelve months. A roadblock isn't warranted here." I don't see any reason to have changed my mind. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Page views aren't important. Think of the reason why the show is called what it is. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Friends should direct to friendship or Quakers. The TV show may be currently popular but has neither the "long-term significance" nor "educational value" to be deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per PT2. Walrasiad (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said I dislike the programme, but to say [t]he TV show may be currently popular but has neither the "long-term significance" nor "educational value" is not true - it ended in 2004. And yet you admit that it's currently popular - which is not bad for a show that ended 19 years ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose hatnote is sufficient for those looking for friendship and non plural friend redirects directly there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Friends (1994 TV series) and move DAB to base name. There is no clear primary topic between the 1994 TV series, generic meaning and Quakers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming, use "Friends (1994 TV series)"; clearly the common noun is the common meaning. And as this TV show is so old, many zoomers don't even know it exists; though many boomers also don't know it exists, since it was mostly relevant to that generation that grew up with it, instead of being an intergenerational TV show -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many zoomers don't even know it exists I was born in 2000 and a significant amount of my peers are fans of or have seen the show. After all, it still airs on TV and it's available on streaming platforms. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I would love to see the article (and everything relating to the series) deleted, but it's not going to happen. The TV series is clearly the common/primary topic. Just google "friends" and - certainly for my results - I have to wait until page 3 before I get anything that isn't related to the show. It's insidious, but that's how it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chaheel Riens WP:NWFCTM Friendship as a concept, which has been around since the dawn of human civilization. Or a 30 year old TV show from America? What's more significant in the long term, do you think? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The term under discussion is "Friends", not "Friendship", and there's a subtle but important distinction. In this context, the answer is - sadly - the TV show. Incidentally, be careful replying with essentially the same response to multiple people - it could be construed as WP:BLUDGEON. Not there yet, but just be aware of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but move to Friends (1994 TV series) as above. TV show is not primary for friends. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As others said this is the primary topic you say friends most people would think of this show instead of their actual friends Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fanoflionking Your metric literally is what WP:NWFCTM says not to use.

  Friendship as a concept, which has been around since the dawn of human civilization. Or a 30 year old TV show from America? What's more significant in the long term, do you think? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, this is not taking up the primary topic at friend/friendship. Two things can coexist at singular and plural names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In principle, I'd rather we use "(TV series)" as a disambiguator over "(1994 TV series)" as I think this passes WP:PDAB. I otherwise would support in principle, but worry that this may end up benefiting very few people in practice. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to go out and say friends to 100 people I bet at least 90 of them will say something about the show this is one of the most well know shows ever Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends where you live. Walrasiad (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Friends" is a word like "apple". Srnec (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per WP:PLURALPT. People will probably type "friend" if looking for the concept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Comedy has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a show not matter how popular is not more significant than the concept of friends—blindlynx 18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for all of the reasons already outlined – it gets very tedious how many voters ignore that hatnotes are a perfectly acceptable solution in a case like this. And especially oppose Friends (1994 TV series) which is a patently absurd suggestion – if this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and, FTR, I agree that it is), it is absolutely the "primary subtopic" by any reasonable, rational definition. So oppose, though Friends (TV series) is the correct the fallback position. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Facetious comment - what really annoys me is when I talk about the Friends episode on TV last night, and everybody asks me "the Korean reality show, or the 2002 drama?" It's obvious I'm referring to the 2014 reality show instead. Obviously. Who's even heard of the other show outside of America anyway? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll post a serious comment in reply to this – it's really unfortunate that there are two (almost three) South Korean series with this title as well: it would be much simpler if there were two American series, and one Polish and one South Korean series... But page views leave no doubt here: [3] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the second criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explicitly claims that we should consider long-term educational significance. NGL, I'm fairly confident that friendship is more significant overall than a TV show. Red Slash 21:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That article is at Friendship, not "Friend" or "Friends". That's more than a "WP:SMALLDETAILS" difference. And, again, there is a hatnote, just in case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really a case of WP:SMALLDETAILS as the concept is still commonly called "Friend(s)" which is why Friend is a primary redirect. This isn't like say Crickets where the plural has a significantly different distinct meaning. The DAB page has some 97 uses plus 4 in the "See also" and has 3 common meanings, 1994 TV series, concept and Quakers. Putting the top 3 like they already are similar to Mercury and Lincoln would surely be more helpful than having a primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not cite the WP:SMALLDETAILS to me, @IJBall:. I was there when it was written. JK, no, but seriously and with respect... as I see it, this isn't a "small details" because "friends" is a perfectly valid way to refer to the topic of "friendship". This is more akin to having eggs redirect to eggs as food rather than to egg; there are a lot of different ways to refer to the concept of friendship. Red Slash 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if I were to concede that most people typing in "Friends" aren't looking for the U.S. TV series (and, FTR, I'm not conceding that), it's still there in the hatnote. I think too many people get hung up on the idea that "everyone needs to get everywhere they're intending to in 'one click'" on Wikipedia – I personally think that "two-click solutions" (e.g. via hatnotes) are perfectly acceptable, and I suspect most of the readership feels the same way. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is still a very, very popular TV show, and the "concept" of friendship is comparatively less interesting. Friendship is blown out of the water in pageviews and I strongly suspect that "Friendship" is getting some redirects from "Friend" that really want something else. SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "comparatively less interesting" is meaningless. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It was said to stop bludgeoning the discussion. 2. They are referring to what is apparently less interesting to site visitors, not themselves. I think most people know that discussions shouldn't be about what is interesting to them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Friends as the tv show, with friendship for the concept, makes sense. The text at the top of the page helps anyone who is on the wrong page. 2A00:23C8:185:B501:4484:7CDB:ABD1:DEF4 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the various reasons stated above. The hatnote already tells readers if they're looking for the idea of "friendship" itself or other related terms. The show is still very popular worldwide and sees much more page views than the concept of friendship. Outside of Wikipedia, even Googling "Friends" will bring up many results related to the tv series (if that's worth noting). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on the proposed move, but oppose a move to Friends (1994 TV series) as unnecessarily WP:PRECISE. The 1994 TV series receives 148 times as many monthly pageviews as all other TV series titled "Friends" combined (stats link), which places it well within normal bounds for an acceptable WP:PDAB. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; yes, pageviews aren't everything, but when the TV series gets almost 8x as many views as the concept of Friendship since July 2015, I find it hard to make a case for a primary redirect to Friendship. The argument for a DAB page is a bit stronger with the existence of Quakers, but it's still not very close. I just don't think a different setup from what we currently have would actually aid our readers, especially with the hatnotes in place. Wikinav's graphs are only half working right now, but over the past two months, Friendship isn't even in the top 10 most outgoing pageviews from Friends. (The 1994 TV series disambiguation is even worse – this is literally the exact situation WP:PDAB is meant for?) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]