Talk:Friends Reunited

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friends Reunited 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.

Article policies

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

History

What we need is some kind of history of Friends Reunited (who founded the web site, when, where, why). I still believe that deleting information (Friends Reunited is a British web site that has risen greatly in fame and prominence in the early 2000s) doesn't help a lot. What is so awful about the above sentence? <KF> 16:43, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

AFD

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Friends reunited was proposed for deletion. What follows is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This part of the page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page (see above) rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

~~commercial advertising spam.~~ the masses have spoken. Alkivar 02:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete. JFW | T@lk 03:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Move to Friends Reunited and improve. Notable UK website, often referred to in the British news. Average Earthman 09:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep An original idea for a contact website that now covers many countries incl. UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany & Ireland. Regularly in the UK news. Has spawned copycat sites such as Forcesreunited.org.uk lostamigos.net etc. Article needs expansion though
Strong Keep. Does need a lot of work, but it's a massivly popular in the UK (and now internationally). Alexa ranking on friendreunited.co.uk 1,697. Darksun 11:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Gets almost constant television coverage in the UK, millions have used it etc etc [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 11:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep, at a glance; it's certainly an element of UK popular culture (the sort of thing tjhat's unsurprising to see in newspaper cartoons, &c). Shimgray 14:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep Famous in the UK, constantly in the news and offers a free service. No more "commercial advertising spam" than BBC News 24! --Sp82 17:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep - easily passes notability test -- The Anome 17:13, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Friends Reunited is becoming as popular with UK school-leavers as the school yearbook has always been with graduating high-school students in the US.

So is Classmates.com in the USA which is almost identical in function, its been speedy deleted twice. Alkivar 05:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. How about merging it into a new general article about "Internet Contact & Reunion Organisations"? These are definitely a new phenomenon worthy of an encyclopedia entry Adambisset 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Friends Reunited is a cultural phenomenon. It's notable on its own. It was the first of these sites and it's enormously popular in the UK. There wouldn't be a person who didn't know of it, the papers are full of stories of reunited lovers who leave their current partners etc.Dr Zen 23:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Au Contraire! Classmates.com was started in 1995! It was the first and remains the largest such schoolmate reunion site. Alkivar 01:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep without question. It's a phenomenon.Dr Zen 07:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Unfortunately it can't be ignored. zoney ♣ talk 21:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep and join in the NPOV fun. Try googling for things like "Friends Reunited" stalker[1] and keep reading through till you get to things like this.. actually I didn't manage to find a good stalker story yet. That would be notable in its self. Mozzerati 22:28, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Friends Reunited.jpg

Image:Friends Reunited.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0

We really need some discussion about the fact that friendsreunited has been totally overtaken by web 2.0 social networking sites like facebook. Their active membership has dropped drastically. Anyone have any figures? Little Professor (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Price Paid by ITV?

Currently the article states in different sections that ITV paid £120 million and £175 million - at least one of those figures must be wrong... 217.113.170.97 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

I'm not sure how to mark a subject as out of date. I can't comment on much of the content, but much is referred to in the present tense (ITV ownership, for example) which should now be past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.190.190 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to mark "out of date" as the content you refer to is clearly in the history section, it only need a minor edit. Warren (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Dust

This show had a parody skit about Friends Reunited where a man and woman meet are a school reunion. Wondering if it should be listed. -Ranze

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends Reunited. 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:

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) 19:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least 4 were involved in setting up FriendsReunited

I think there must of been at least four people involved in setting up FriendsReunited as I have heard there was a legal dispute over ownership in which 2 couples both claimed ownership and based their claims on their involvement in setting it up. One couple claimed to have set it up as a website: The other couple claimed to have set it up as a company. A judge made a ruling about which lead to ownership 86.178.157.248 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth friends from Bishop Vaughan 1974/1975/1976

Or Holy Cross primary school 😂 fancy a reunion?? I live in Derbyshire now but happy to travel to Devon. I was called Mary Nally back in the day 😀

07515640378 call me if you want a reunion 🤗 xx 86.3.165.234 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]