Talk:Friends

Hello!

Browsing Commons I came upon a reprint of the notorious "Aux Buttes Chaumont" poster.

Why not add it to the article? It was a distinctive visual element of the series throughout all 10 seasons. It is also obviously public domain, unlike most other elements of the set: the Bibliothèque nationale de France confirms that it is a 1885 work of prolific illustrator Jules Chéret (d. 1932). There is also a higher-resolution less colorful scan of the original uploaded from this site.

I suggest one of the following locations:

• In the Cast and characters section, next to Monica's name, as it is a part of Monica's apartment
• Next to Season 1, as it appears as early as the pilot
• At the top of the Production section, which lacks a picture.

Of course, it should also be added to the Monica Geller article, which gives more details about the apartment.

What do you think? Place Clichy (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Place Clichy, I'm not sure this image is much use to the reader. The poster is no more than a background element of one set, and is not discussed anywhere in the article, nor even in the archived version of the reference cited. Meanwhile, the coffee shop image illustrates a major location in the show, and is relevant to the section in question as it's where Rachel works in Season 1 onwards. Since this is a Good Article, we should be following the GACR, which asks that images be "relevant to the topic" and not simply be decorative. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: this image is indissociable from Monica's apartment, which is a defining feature of the series, so I'd say it is relevant to the topic. A key advantage of this image is that it is public domain, unlike most Friends-related material. For instance, I think it is probably debatable that the Central Perk set picture if free of copyrighted elements, and as an indoor picture is not panorama. There are many pîctures on this page which are probably equally or less relevant to the series: File:The House used in Friends (48072768102).jpg, File:The Friends Stage.jpg, File:The FRIENDS Experience - The One in Toronto - 2022 (cropped).jpg, File:Matt LeBlanc 2010.jpg. About "prominence", magnifying the non-free season 1 cast image by a ratio of 1.5, while it is not an upright picture, is probably overkill. There is a dedicated section for the Coffee house, so I'd say that the Central Perk picture is best there and should probably not be moved. As for keeping this a good article, the above suggestion stood 7 months unopposed in talk, and then 4 more months in the article until you removed it without discussion, so I'd say that it seems pretty consensual, you withdrawn. However improvements are always possible seen your feedback, and I suggest the following, some or all of which can be combined:

1. Change the caption so the topic is Monica's apartment, not the poster: replace "A poster in Monica's apartment, ranked as one of television's most famous sets.^[1]" with "Monica's apartment, around this living room poster, is ranked as one of television's most famous sets.^[2]"
2. I agree that a picture centered on the poster makes it look somewhat huge: we can make it less "prominent" by using the upright parameter.
3. We don't really need a picture next to the "Season 1" title, as there was none until last August: as suggested originally we can move the picture further in the article, at the top of the Production section, which lacks a picture.

This is what the article looks with these suggestions. Place Clichy (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I would seriously dispute the notion that the poster is "indissociable" from the apartment. The apartment is hardly structured "around" the poster as your suggested caption implies - the poster is half behind the TV, which hardly suggests great prominence in the set decor. The poster is not discussed in the article, nor is it an element seriously discussed in reliable sources about the show, so far as I can tell.

That the poster is public domain is not in dispute, but it also has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs in the article. Your copyright argument about the Central Perk set image appears spurious; per Commons guidance, film/TV props are likely to be viewed as utilitarian objects and not copyrightable as creative works. Any non-utilitarian objects are de minimis within the context of the shot. Feel free to nominate the image for deletion on Commons; whether or not it survives is again immaterial to whether or not the image of the poster should be included.

The same goes for the other images you identify as "less relevant", which I would also disagree with. It seems obvious to me that the apartment the show is ostensibly set in is relevant for visual identification, as is the image of the soundstage named for the show, and the image of the exhibit that demonstrates its enduring legacy. Images of the actors are pretty common on TV series articles as well. What's not common are images of public domain background art placed prominently in the article just because they happen to have been used as set dec. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of subjectivity here, obviously. "Behind the TV" means at the focus point of the den, around which the apartment radiates. That's why this set element, which is identifiable, was largely featured on screen. Of course this can also be said of other set elements but they are not as identifiable and there is at the moment no other free image of the inside of the apartment. Of course I wouldn't object adding such images to the article if they surfaced and were relevant enough. I'm open to another caption if you have a better one.

I don't argue for the removal of the other pictures, I just think that their relevance holds with so thin strings that it is hard to argue a lack of relevance to remove the poster picture. Of course images of actors are relevant, but there are already 2 Matt LeBlanc images that are contemporary to the show in the cast section, so a 2010 picture of aging him to illustrate a 2004-2006 spin-off is far from indispensable. This picture isn't even on the Joey (TV series) article. The building used for external still shots is indeed relevant, but if one was able to measure I doubt these external views had more screen time that the poster over the series' length. The exhibition picture illustrates the Legacy section but gives zero information about the show. A backstage door with "Friends" written on it equally gives zero information. That's why I called these 4 pictures equally or less relevant. Place Clichy (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing subjective about the fact that no reliable sources discuss the poster as a major element of Monica's apartment, so there is no discussion of the poster as a major element of the set dec in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A short Internet search returns a good number of articles and discussions about the role of the poster in the series. Most of them are in French, as it seems indeed that French viewers were probably faster in noticing a French-language poster about a Paris store repeatedly featured in the series. Many of them are fan-related content, but then you would certainly expect that much content about Friends is fan-related. The Friends French fan club reproduces an article about it published in the book 10 ans de Friends: L'encyclopédie exhaustive de la série culte (10 years of Friends: the exhaustive encyclopedia of the cult series). This 466-page book is a reference published work, see e.g. an online library. This article goes as far as to identify the former location of the former store and its history. Another page on the history of the store. This site and this one tell you how to look like the series' heroes by getting your own version of the poster. and many others market the poster by saying it appears in the series. So yes, there is a link between the poster and the apartment and the series' fictional universe. There is more connection there than in a backstage door. And once again, not many elements are so clearly in the public domain and good candidates for a free encyclopedia article. Free content is a pillar of Wikipedia. Place Clichy (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A Friends fan club and several amateur blogs are hardly reliable sources suitable for use in a GA. Same goes for commercial websites selling the poster. That the image is free does not necessarily mean that we must include it when there is no content about the poster in the actual article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The book L'encyclopédie exhaustive de la série culte does not fall in your exclusion criteria. Content in the article is about the apartment, and that source supports a link between the poster and the apartment. The fact that it is written in French is not an issue. We must not include any picture, but we should look for free pictures to illustrate an article, and preferably some which are more relevant than a door in an irrelevant location that just has Friends written on it, or a picture of an exhibition entrance hall that does not give any indication about the series. Place Clichy (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The salient point is that neither the poster nor the interior of the apartment are discussed in detail in the article, and nor should they be in any case. The subject of the article is the series overall, not the set decoration of Monica's apartment. Whether the image is free or not has absolutely zero impact on whether or not the image is an appropriate addition to the article. Please review MOS:IMAGEREL, which specifically states that "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". A poster that is not in any way discussed in the article is decorative, not significant or relevant, and you are now edit-warring to include it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Your objections actually very well fit the first 3 items described at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR:

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established spelling or citation styles.)
2. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
3. An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

BRD-NOT also states that BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

This propose change stood for months on the talk page and then in the article, after I added it on 31 August, and you are the only one that's been bothered. For instance, 9 other users have edited the article (bot excluded) and 6 the talk page in the meantime. So I don't think I am the one edit-warring here. If Discussion first and bold changes do not allow to improve an article when one just stands in the way, I don't know what will. I asked for a third opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You continue to avoid the substance of my concern, which is that the image is strictly decorative and has nothing to do with the actual content of the article.

It is interesting that you claim that I am exhibiting ownership behavior. You are the one trying to claim the right to determine which images belong in the article. You are the only one trying to retain this image - I am hardly reverting "justified article changes by different editors" (my bold for clarity). Finally, I am claiming that your insertion of the image is detrimental, as it goes against the MOS on strictly decorative images, so your third point does not apply. I am happy to hear a third opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Came to this discussion from WT:TV. For context, I am someone who has no fandom to Friends and will occasionally watch it if I flip to a channel and it's on but can not tell you all the ins and outs or easter eggs etc.. To the discussion, which I've just browsed to get the gist of, I don't see the purpose of this illustration. From what I do know about Friends, I wouldn't expect to see this image of a poster on the article, when I'd much more expect to see the Central Perk set or a wide shot image of the whole apartment set. If there are other sub articles within the Friends categories that is better suited for noting the importance of the poster, then the poster image should go there. I agree wholly with Premeditated Chaos's first response comment above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Favre1fan93, I appreciate the feedback and I'm sure Place Clichy does as well. Sorry for my delayed response, been mostly offwiki for a few days. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The "fish magnets" that appear on the refrigerator on Friends were created by artist Tina Cuccia who sent a set of the fish skeleton magnets to the set designer of the show in the 1990s carefully creating them in colors that would work well on the fridge and the bright colors featured in the decor of in Rachel and Monica's apartment apartment. Shortly thereafter, the fish were placed on the fridge and were moved around the fridge door from episode to episode. Today the fish are known as Friends Fish Magnets and available on Etsy and Cuccia's own website at www.tinacuccia.com

^{[1] [2]} 2600:1700:7800:3D10:B8D2:6667:CDA6:DC68 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Trivial at best. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Any help towards the article would be appreciated! MrHunter25 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The final eight episodes of season 2 were recently uploaded to YouTube. The Wikipedia page for Joey mentions this but not here. Abenu69 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is not about Joey. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But there is a dedicated section for spin-offs. And if this sections cares enough to mention the unaired episodes, I think it is fair to ask for an update .

Thank you! Abenu69 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a collector of information. Content related to spin-offs is mentioned accordingly in their respective spin-off articles. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)