Talk:Rachel Green

	Rachel Green 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 July 23, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 31, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the "Rachel", worn by and named after Jennifer Aniston's character on Friends, became one of the most popular hairstyles of all time?

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

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 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 High-importance). Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character Fashion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish Women Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women 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.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Rachel haircut was copied or moved into Rachel Green with this edit on 18 August 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I'm a bit confused - if the character's name is actually spelt as GreenE why is this Listed as Green. I don't under the qualification that "commonly referred to in the series as Green. Well it would be as that's how you'd pronouce it!

Many thanks for anyone who clears this up for me!

--Charlesknight 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

according to the article, its greene so i propose to move the page to "Rachel Greene"Tomba 23:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move to Rachel Greene as that is the correct spelling. --musicpvm 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is what i found at http://friends-tv.org/

 Is Rachel's last name spelled "Green," or "Greene"?
It's been spelled both ways. The credits of any episode where her parents appeared list their 
last name as "Green." But in "The One With The Invitation," Ross's envelope to Rachel, as well 
as her RSVP note, spell it "Greene." Then in episode 10.04, "The One With the Cake," the box with 
Emma's cake had "Green" written on it.

So it has been spelled both ways, but if the Friends credits and official sites spell it "Green", we should probably stick with the current title (but mention the alternate spelling in the first sentence). --musicpvm 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In the Friends universe, her name is clearly spelt Greene. It is highly unlikely that Ross would spell her name incorrectly on her wedding invitation and that the sign on her office is wrong. Although NBC may disagree, in the world of Friends, her name is quite obviously Rachel Greene.81.151.140.33 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Friends universe? I think you missed the bit at the beginning of the article outlining the fact that Friends is a FICTIONAL character. I'm sorry but if the creators and credits say her name is Green then thats what it is. I don't think you understand that Ross didnt actually write the wedding invitation - that was done by a props manager

It says in the trivia notes that Rachel is the oldest of three daughters. When was this mentioned? We know she is older than Jill, but I don't remember it ever being said she was older than Amy.Sandmaster 22:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel is the only member of the group to have lived under the same roof as all of the other friends: As much as I remember Rachel is not the only one who lived with all the members of the group. Chandler also did that: Joey: Season 1 - 5 Ross: After Ross lost his appartment during the divorce with Emily, Ross moved in with Joey and Chandler Monica: Season 6 - 10 Rachel: After the fire in Phoebies appartment, Rachel moved in at Monica's and Chandlers for a day, till the Firerighter found out the fire was Rachels fault. Phoebe: Moved in with Monica and Chandler, after Rachel had to move to Joey, because the fire was Rachels fault. Please confirm! --Tobi72 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed, friends explained it pretty well, except for Joey-Monica, everyone had lived together with the other during some time. Z3u2 07:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the picture of 'Rachel' not be added to the Jennifer Aniston page as there is currently no picture of her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.215.2 (talk • contribs) 18:08, January 16, 2007

No, it could not, as the picture of Rachel is not free and a fair use rationale could not be made for identifying the actor with a copyrighted picture of a character the actor has played. The Jennifer Aniston article would be best off with a freely licensed picture of her. Leebo ^T/C 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A statement has been added to the article, asserting that Rachel had 20 sexual partners over the course of the series, only 5 of which were with people she was in a relationship with. I've watched the entire series beginning to end on DVD more than once, and this statement does not ring true to me. Who were all these non-relationship sexual partners? --Tkynerd 02:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty? Okay, I think thats pushing it. All I can think of at the moment are Ross, Paolo, Tag, Paul, Barry, Galvin (maybe), and Joey (though they never did), all of which were long term relationships. Russ, Josh, and Danny were never sexual or an actual relationship. I think that statement should be edited or removed. DSMeatte 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absent more and better documentation, I'm removing the statement from the article now. If it is to be restored, I expect to see some explanation of who all these people were. --Tkynerd 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel is supposed to have kissed Galvin Mitchell. Is it the actor or the footballer ? akarkera 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. Gavin was a character in several episodes of the show, played by Dermot Mulroney. --Tkynerd 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have an article for Galvin Mitchell (the character). Shouldn't this article(Rachel Green) link to Dermot Mulroney or be unlinked? akarkera 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to point to the List of significant others articles. CloudNine 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just been watching "The one with Phoebe's Rats" and noticed the name tag at Rachel's office door spells it Rachel Greene". The article should be corrected. josh (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel's last name doesn't have a specific spelling. When Ross is holding an envelope addressed to her, it says Greene. THe sign on her door says Greene. But, Emma's birthday cake had "Green" written on it, and when Rachel's parents are in the end credits, it says "Green". I guess there just isn't a specific spelling. However, as a last name, which I've seen dozens of times in real life, it's usually spelled "Greene", so this is probably how the writers intended to spell it. But, since it has been spelled both ways in the show, we don't really know which way it is spelled. Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also by viewing the subtitles it is spelt with the end E. (greene) in episodes sucha s the one with the rumuor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.54.236 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the audio clip? It is total out-dated, those not follow the actual article anymore, and has some mistakes in it too, like when the narrator say "Pablo" or whatever his name was. Otherwise record a new one, however that is done. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Green is also the name of a 14-year-old runaway girl from SE Wisconsin who ran off to New York with a military discharge creep she met on MySpace. The story was a big news story last summer in much of the Midwest and also in the area that she ran away to. I was going to write an article about it, but I don't know how I would title it. The Person Who Is Strange 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Person Who Is Strange (talk • contribs)

How dumb. I signed it and it says i didn't. The Person Who Is Strange 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions? The Person Who Is Strange 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HELLO? The Person Who Is Strange 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody offer an opinion. What should the parenthetic title of the other article be? ," said The Person Who Is Strange. ~Yup. It's all true. Click here for more. My page is outdated, but there are a lot of boxes. 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO? SOMEBODY SUGGEST SOMETHING! ," said The Person Who Is Strange. ~Yup. It's all true. Click here for more. My page is outdated, but there are a lot of boxes. 02:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the relationships section, wouldn't Gunther's apparent infatuation with Rachel, and her short fling with Tag Jones be suitable additions?--Coin945 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[This could also fall into its own Trivia category, but:

Rachel and Chandler are not the only ones who have kissed everyone else. Ross has also kissed everyone.

-Since Rachel and Chandler are confirmed here,

-Ross kissed

--Joey at the end of an episode to help him with an audition.

--Phoebe in a flashback and for New Year's.

--Monica in a failed "First Kiss with Rachel."

Joey and Monica have never kissed and Phoebe and Monica have never kissed.]

From the article: "At the start of the show, Rachel and Chandler would cross paths again, this time in 1994, when Rachel, having just left Barry at the altar, goes to Central Perk, looking for Monica." If it's going to be stated that they cross paths AGAIN at the START of the show (talking about the pilot here), shouldn't there be mention of the fact that Monica introduces Rachel to Chandler for the first time in this scene? I think the continuity error should be mentioned or the above sentence that I'm scrutinizing should be rewritten.

93.139.102.232 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)bender[reply]

Isn't it Emma Geller-Green(e)? After Emma is born the nurse says "Then we call you Baby-Girl Green(e)". But then Rachel interrups and says "No. Baby-Girl Geller-Green(e)". So I think the last name should be changed in Geller-Green(e).--78.48.228.50 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know her actual birthday? It can't be May 5th. There's an episode where she gets pulled over and the cops notes she's an aquarius. Also, in season 9 her birthday party episode aired January 16th. --Kwhitt78 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Katie[reply]

In her profile it says see below but when you click the link it just brings you to the section about her surname and mentions nothing of her faith? Could someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:En-rachelgreen.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:En-rachelgreen.ogg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Before I start, I'd like to say that Wikipedia is amazing. It has so many great articles on films and TV series.

Now, I am about to delete the "sweet little quirks" sentence from section 3.3 Monica because the factual accuracy of this statement is in serious trouble. As far as I know, the source of this sentence is the season 6 episode "The One On The Last Night" in which Monica explicitly say those things. However, I believe she was not entirely truthful, for two reasons:

1. Monica starts saying those things when Phoebe says "I don't want to live with Rachel anymore", potentially disrupting Chandler's moving in. Monica is therefore forced to invent compelling reasons for Phoebe to live with Rachel. Monica ends her speech by wailing "...and I have to live with a boy", as if living with Chandler was a huge misfortune!
2. The statement taken by itself is questionable when comes from Monica. Being extremely uptight and compulsive, Monica hates every form of untidiness including the edges of catalog pages being bent and the mirror becoming smudged by sticky notes.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Rachel's door at Bloomingdale's, it says "Greene". When her parents are on the show, in the credits it says "Green". When Ross is holding an envelope addressed to Rachel, it says "Greene". But, Emma's birthday cake box said "Green" on it. There must have been no decided way to spell it! Olsentwinluv4ever (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to semiprotect this article again today, but instead, in an attempt to allow constructive IP editors to continue editing the article, I've blocked the range 75.120.80.0/20 that the recent vandalism has been coming from. If somebody notices further extensive vandalism from IPs, feel free to let me know on my talkpage and I'll semi for a while. Does anybody know why this article is such a silliness magnet...? Bishonen | talk 23:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen: Rather old news here, but the article is one of several targeted by the Friends shipping vandal. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:SummerPhDv2.0. We're supposed to be sweet to the vandals, but seriously, what an idiot. Please let me know if you think the article needs semi. Or maybe pending changes? I see it had that for a while. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

We had a 72 hour range block from 2/22/2017 that bought us roughly one week of quiet. There are roughly 25 to 30 articles involved and they're been at it for several years. Unless we semi/pending all of them for a long time, it's only a temporary measure. We have similar problems in other areas as well (Wikipediholism trolling, WP:KIDSTVDATES, etc.). We have "treatments" (whack-a-mole, page protection, pending changes, etc.) that all come down to who gives up first. The only cure is to end anonymous editing and I expect to be long dead and forgotten before that passes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section of Rachel Green's is solely about her promiscuity and breast development. That is not personality. I changed it to reflect information about her personality, but it was reverted without explanation. I move that her personality section actually have substance about her personality, rather than resembling a Playboy biography.QuizzicalBee (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No...you removed it, which is not the same as changing it. If the character's physical attributes and sexual behavior are a facet of the show and the subject of sourced commentary then they are eligible for inclusion in the article. We are not a fan wiki and we cover all aspects of the character's depiction. If you feel there is a structural problem with the article—although I half suspect that is just a pretense for whitewashing it—then I propose you should tackle the problem at at a structural level. It would not that difficult to transfer the discussion of her sexual encounters to the relationships section, for instance, which is probably where it belongs. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being reliably sourced is not the sole criteria for inclusion. It has to be relevant, and the information simply was not relevant to the section at hand. I would have kept it if it were, but it was just off-topic and biased, reducing the character's personality to factoids about sexual behavior and appearance. At best the narrow focus means it's incomplete, at worst that it's biased and NPOV violation. I wouldn't have blinked at the inclusion if it were part of an intelligent, detailed, well-thought out description of the personality of the character. But it was none of those things. Frankly, I'd say the kind of drooling focus on sexuality to the exclusion of any other personality traits to me resembles a fan wiki more than Wikipedia. That you made no change except to revert what I wrote--not even including what I wrote as part of the description--also suggests you found nothing wrong with the portion as described, and you found the part that I added to be inappropriate. I would be fine with transferring the portion in question to the relationships section as you suggest. But do you have any contributions to make to the Personality section besides removing my content without even a word as to why my content is out of place?QuizzicalBee (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a fictional character in a sitcom, so none of it is particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things; however, the show's depiction of the character's sexuality is just as relevant as any other aspect of the character, and none of this is included to the "exclusion of other personality traits". I did not revert your edit to remove your content, I reverted to restore the content your edit had removed. If you are unhappy with the emphasis on sexuality then simply add more detail and balance it out; nobody is preventing you, but preferably without the obvious agenda. The character was sexually objectified by the creators of the show who conceived her as the "slutty girl next door" i.e. more sexual relationships than the other girls in the show, early sexual development, shorter skirts and tighter dresses than her co-stars (I even recall her dining out at restaurant in her negligee) and obviously becoming an unmarried mother with questions over the paternity; therefore I think the overt sexualisation of the character is something the article should probably cover. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a suggestion? Instead of focusing on removing the inappropriate, you can add more appropriate contents. (If the inappropriate are really inappropriate, this makes the community notice. The consensus to curb or delete the appropriate would then come very naturally.) One of the yet-to-be-covered character specifications of Rachel is frequent lying. Another is deliberately damaging other women. E.g. she ruined Julie's hairdo by lying to Phoebe; made Bonnie bald; vilified Phoebe in front of Charlie more than needed to save her own face; not to mention committing slander in a court of law, calling Ross a homosexual and a drug addict in official records. I also seem to remember something about her being a pushover. Fleet Command (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now that none of you two are willing to comment on this, I decided to act. I reinstated part of QuizzicalBee's edit because it was a valid take and removed the comment on breast size for lacking due weight and contextual relevance (let alone contextual significance). I did not reinstate the second part of QuizzicalBee's edit because it directly contradicted the first sentence of the paragraph and needed a source anyway. Fleet Command (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only real objection was the removal of sourced commentary so your edits are ok with me. Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand Hey! Thank you so much for your corrections, man. Even though I'm a devoted Friends fan and have watched the entire series, my details still are a little muddled. When I said "interfere with each other's love lives," I was referring to the love lives of Ross and Rachel, for example: Rachel is the reason Ross ends his relationship with Julie; Rachel is the reason Ross' marriage to Emily fails; Ross is the reason Rachel refuses to date Mark after their breakup. See?--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Changedforbetter. I give you the Julie's case and I even add Bonnie, Jill and Mona to your list. However, Ross and Rachel had many relationships with people that ended regardless, e.g. Joshua, Tag, Charlie, Cheryl, Elizabeth Stevens, Paul Stevens and Gavin Mitchell. Others were nameless and their relationship mostly ended off-screen. (Joey's coworker had a name but I forgot.)

Mona and Emily were simply not marriage type. They wouldn't have lasted anyway. Compare with Phoebe: She made a complete ass of herself in front of Mike's parents and they got married anyway. Rachel unwittingly said the worst things she could have said in front Elizabeth and her father, but Ross and Elizabeth's relationship was unaffected. (They separated later for another reason.) And finally, we get to the Ross/Rachel's official foil: Chandler/Monica. For everything that happened to Ross and Rachel, either the same or the worst happened to Chandler and Monica. Ross was jealous of Mark; Chandler was jealous of Richard Burke and Don (a British guy that Phoebe believed was Monica's soulmate). Ross slept with another woman after he broke up with Rachel, causing her to go ballistic; Monica forced Chandler to sleep with another woman even though they were together (*cough* Phoebe!) just to prove her own point, bought him porn (although he watched a birthing tape instead), hired a hooker for him (supposed to be a stripper), did not object when Chandler dated another a female director (he needed to win an audition for Joey) and did nothing crazy when she suspected Chandler was having an affair with the runner-up for Miss Oklahoma, Wendy. Well. They were marriage type. (Actually, one of our Wikipedians thinks Chandler is admin type! LOL!)

Fleet Command (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=IYwNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ym8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3371,4064656&hl=en http://www.bdcwire.com/a-definitive-ranking-of-the-5-best-friends-episodes-for-each-character/

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rachel Green/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for the delay, more RL stuff going on than expected. I will try go get this done in the next couple of days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

To me, there is very little wrong with this article. The following issues I found:

• There are three dead links, as can be seen here. They should be replaced.

• I could only find two. They've been removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you maybe move her full name into the infobox and reference it there?

• From what I've gathered based on past fictional character good articles, the character's full name, IE characters with known middle names, is generally excluded from the infobox and included and cited in the intro paragraph. For example, Rachel Berry and Kim Possible (character).--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

• In "Role", the references suddenly stop after the third paragraph. Even though plot summaries don't necessarily need to be sourced, it would be great if you could just name the respective episodes as references, such as you did earlier.

• Added a few more episodes as citations.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Sorry this took so long. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues have been addressed sooooo I think I'm done :)--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me now. It's a pass! You might want to take a look at the last edit by an IP. I find it strange, but I'll leave the decision to you if you want to revert it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section has recently been added and I believe it is not an appropriate addition to the article. Bar the odd reference to the Warner Bros. website it mainly consists of "in universe" references that the author has identified as evidence of the inconsistency in how Rachel's surname is spelt. While references to the show may be acceptable to source that the names has been spelt differently in the show they are not sufficient to establish that the inconsistency is in any way significant. As a rule "in universe" goofs and inconsistencies are not documented on Wikipedia per WP:BLOOPERS, unless secondary sources (i.e. reliable sources not affiliated to the show or to Warner) explicitly cover the issue of the inconsistency itself. A secondary source is important for two reasons: i) it establishes that there is a debate (at the moment the introductory sentence "There is confusion about the correct spelling of Rachel's last name" is a blatant example of WP:EDITORIALIZING); and ii) it establises that the inconsistency is significant, as required by WP:WEIGHT to merit coverage in the article. It is simply unacceptable for an editor to take an inconsistency/goof, frame a debate around it, and to pick out examples which back up their thesis. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section was much too large. However, the topic seems to come up often (see above on this talk page, and the article's edit history). I have added a very short mention of the spelling discrepancy, as it has in fact been regularly noted by well-known newspapers and entertainment magazines in "top ten" lists and similar articles about discrepancies on the show. See the citation given, as well as: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. --IamNotU (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Changedforbetter:, would you please explain your bizarre revert? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gladly. The information you added is unsourced, as well as irrelevant to the article. If I were to choose one that were less relevant, it would be the Marlo Thomas hairstyle, but it would still need to be sourced.
• Also, you removed the clearly sourced $25 million annual salary claim because, according to you, it "is obviously wrong". Explain this?--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first things first: get a piece of paper and a pen (or maybe a pencil in case you make a mistake), and write "1,000,000". Then below it, write 18, like you're doing a multiplication problem, and then solve the problem. You may want do it several times to double check your work or use an electronic calculator if you want. Now comes the hard part: compare your answer to the "25 million" in the article and see if you're answer agrees with it. I'll wait right here until you get a chance to do it and let me know what you find out. __209.179.0.121 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

75.121.127.242 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Biggest Fan Chandler/Rachel Wedding/Baby?[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on Rachel Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20140525080635/http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2012/04/friends-oral-history-jennifer-aniston-rachel-green
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0%2C%2C20104006%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/jan/03/sitcoms-single-women/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brecorder.com/arts-a-leisure/50-movies/221430-jennifer-aniston-was-supposed-to-play-monica-in-%E2%80%98friends%E2%80%99.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity/548350/friends-without-jennifer-aniston-how-that-very-nearly-happened.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.eonline.com/news/468262/jennifer-aniston-reveals-she-was-asked-to-step-out-of-friends-cast-photos
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/article/jennifer-aniston-almost-replaced-friends-rachel
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wetpaint.com/tv-nostalgia/articles/2015-01-31-jennifer-aniston-was-almost-replaced
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=4990
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.ign.com/stars/jennifer-aniston
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.talktalk.co.uk/entertainment/film/biography/artist/jennifer-aniston/biography/48
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/05/10-thing-you-might-not-know-about-the-friends-finale-on-its-10th-anniversary/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150703012436/http://variety.com/1994/tv/reviews/friends-4-1200438471/ to http://variety.com/1994/tv/reviews/friends-4-1200438471/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/jennifer_aniston/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1560842/Jennifer-Aniston
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tvland.com/shows/friends/bios/jennifer-aniston
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.archetypes.com/timeline/hollywood-archetypes-girl-next-door
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/145707/7-reasons-why-kaley-cuoco-could-become-the-next-jennifer-aniston
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/10257350/Can-Jennifer-Aniston-ever-really-lose-Rachel-from-Friends.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vogue.com/10549635/jennifer-aniston-friends-fashion/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/59890/its-been-six-years-but-theyll-always-be-my-jewish-friends/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=%2Fmember%2F29209
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/05/a-definitive-ranking-of-every-season-of-every-tv-show-that-mattered/371852/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.eonline.com/photos/13785/we-ranked-all-the-friends-couples-and-no-1-may-shock-you/419086
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.eonline.com/news/539047/7-things-friends-fans-still-argue-about-ten-years-later
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etcanada.com/tv/photos/tvs_most_beloved_will_they_won_t_they_couples.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.moviefone.com/photos/11-greatest-will-they-wont-they-tv-couples#slide=3082902
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/11/19/friends-the-complete-series-blu-ray-review
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etcanada.com/tv/photos/the_worst_of_the_best_friends_weakest_episodes.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.eonline.com/photos/13785/we-ranked-all-the-friends-couples-and-no-1-may-shock-you/418956
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.luckyshops.com/article/style-icon-rachel-green
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heatworld.com/2015/02/7-style-lessons-90s-friends-babe-rachel-green-taught-us
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hellogiggles.com/the-best-dressed-female-sitcom-characters-of-all-time/2/#read
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brides.com/celebrity-wedding/2014/06/best-tv-wedding-dresses#slide=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.self.com/looks/hair/2015/01/jennifer-aniston-hair-friends/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3425500650.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/beauty/celebrity/hair/2012/07/100-iconic-celebrity-hairstyles/viewgallery/813647
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/2012/05/the-100-best-hairstyles-of-all-time/4
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/beauty/celebrity/hair/2013/06/best-hair-hairstyles-tv-shows-game-of-thrones-mad-men-gossip-girl/viewgallery/426124
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/2011/09/the-top-20-most-memorable-tv-hairstyles/20
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usmagazine.com/20-most-beloved-tv-characters/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/06/01/100-greatest-characters-of-last-20-years-full-list/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aoltv.com/2011/03/02/tvs-greatest-women-25-1/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chacha.com/gallery/1276/top-16-female-tv-characters-of-all-time/7695
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/the-friends-cast-who-had-the-most-successful-film-98140975826.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/10257350/Can-Jennifer-Aniston-ever-really-lose-Rachel-from-Friends.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/2015/01/jennifer-aniston-friends-was-a-curse
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.talktalk.co.uk/entertainment/film/interviews/jennifer_aniston.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rachel Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150503060138/http://www.lifetimetv.co.uk/biography/biography-jennifer-aniston to http://www.lifetimetv.co.uk/biography/biography-jennifer-aniston
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530042957/http://hellogiggles.com/the-best-dressed-female-sitcom-characters-of-all-time/2 to http://hellogiggles.com/the-best-dressed-female-sitcom-characters-of-all-time/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of you may think that Rachel's last name is spelled "Green" but little do you know it is spelled "Greene". Rachel's last name spelling has been a very controversial topic between tons of fans of the show Friends. In season 4 episode 21, The One With The Invitation, you see that when Rachel is looking at the wedding invitation from Ross and Emily, it is addressed to "Rachel Greene". Later, in season 9 episode 11, The One Where Rachel Goes Back to Work, you see that on the name tag on the door to her office, Rachel's name is spelled Greene. But, in season 10 episode 4, The One With the Cake, we do see that on the cake box it says "Green", but that could've been the cake-maker not knowing how to spell her last name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8400:f443:7d9b:155e:32e5:fb0d (talk • contribs) 22:35, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at Talk:Rachel_Green#Greene_or_Green. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Optimistic One: Your edits make a few unusual claims.

Rachel Green is a character in a television show. Her last appearance is the last episode of the show. That clips from the show later appear in other shows (1990s retrospective TV shows, documentaries about the actress, etc.) does not make those works later appearances of the character.

A sibling-in-law is "the sibling of one's spouse, or the spouse of one's sibling". Chandler at one point was Rachel's spouse's sister's husband. That is rare extension of the term. That someone somewhere uses this rare extension of the concept does not mean we should regularly apply it.

The standing consensus here has been to not list Ross as a spouse as they were not married at the end of the show. If you wish to change this, I would ask you to discuss the issue here and in the Ross article to build a new consensus for the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that "Last Appearance" is not intended to include archive footage. If the game did not feature the character in any new footage it should not be included here. As for the marriage issue, this is slightly more complicated. The character is not married at the end of Friends but I believe is married in the spin-off Joey, despite never appearing? Is that correct? If the spin-off show is canon then I think a compromise could probably be reached here, by listing her status for the two shows. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rachel’s last name is not actually Green it’s Greene. 2001:14BB:69B:8881:94CE:71E7:550A:5F2D (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LauritzT (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to #Greene or Green. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Spirit 007 on several occasions has edited the infobox to stipulate that Rachel and Ross remarried in 2004. In doing Shooting Spirit does not supply a source, and removes an editing note that very specifically requests that editors obtain a consensus on the talk page before initiating this edit. The edit notice was added by SummerPhDv2.0 and follows on from the discussion above.

I fully support SummerPhD's position on this. In the spin-off, Joey, Joey mentions "all of his friends are married". Shooting Spirit's interpretation is a perfectly valid one (and possibly encouraged by the writers of the spin-off), but it is just that: an interpretation of a purposefully ambiguous comment. He does not mention Ross and Rachel specifically (who do not appear in the show), and even if they have got married there is no confirmation it is to each other. Even if there had been explicit confirmation on their marriage, it is not clear if the spin-off is even canon for the other characters. For example, if Joey had turned up in LA and said "all of my friends are dead" would we readily accept that the characters are deceased? In the series that these characters actually appeared in Ross and Rachel ended up together, but not married, and IMO the profiles of these characters should reflect that. To state otherwise we would need some kind of credible and official sourcing that confirms their martial status. Editorial speculation that interprets a throwaway comment in a show that these characters did not even appear in is not a sufficient factual basis for making such a claim. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two other possibilities come to mind: 1) That by this point Joey doesn't consider Ross and Rachel to be his friends, which seems unlikely but not impossible. I haven't seen the series, so is it ever confirmed that Joey does still consider them to be his friends? 2) That Joey was speaking hyperbolically, much as I might say, "Among my friends I'm the token single guy", even when that's not literally true. Less relevantly: I can't say I ever expected that I'd be commenting at the Talk page for a Friends character; I guess it's a Christmas miracle! :p DonIago (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it can be interpreted in several different ways, and I have no doubt that was the intention of the writers. Anyone who wants a "happily ever after" for these two characters can have that, while the fate of the characters isn't conclusively sealed. This might be the most trivial discussion I have ever been involved in on Wikipedia but it does come back around to Wikipedia's core principles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you started here the same year I did, you must pick your battles more carefully than I do if this is the most trivial discussion you've ever been involved in. :p I seem to end up in an ungodly number of discussions where the bottom line is, "You're working off something that's implied, not something that's stated/shown." DonIago (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan, if the fact that Rachel and Ross remarried is untrue, then why does it show in Ross's page that he and Rachel remarried? Shooting Spirit 007 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any clear statement of it there either. I see a statement that it's -hinted- that they remarried, which seems to be reading more into the actual statement than is merited, and is obviously speculative. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to add information that was discussed by the series’ actors during the Reunion in 2021 FearlessPotato (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rachel’s last name was actually spelt GREENE. This was written on her wedding invitation from Ross and Emily. It was also written on her office door when she worked at Ralph Lauren. 2403:580F:6A25:0:D5F9:F3A7:9BF7:E064 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see cited source 26 or read some of these prior posts here on the talk page Cannolis (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The characters last name is spelled Greene and not like the colour.

The name can be seen spelled "Greene" in-universe 3 times:

In "The One With The Invitation" (S4E21) on Rachel's invite to Ross' wedding.

On the label of Emma's cradle in "The One Where Rachel Has A Baby, Part 2" (S8Е24).

On Rachel's office door nameplate at Ralph Lauren, clearly visible in "The One With Phoebe's Rats" (S9E12). MazterofPuppetz7 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]