Talk:Monica Geller

Monica Geller 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. Review: October 19, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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

Comedy Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 articles 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. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Under Trivia, someone said that the main couple on the show was originally going to be Joey and Monica, not Ross and Rachel. Is there a citation/reference for that, or is it even true? Dalton Imperial 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108778/trivia I'd seen this before, but I had to hunt down a reference. Not very difinitive, but there you go. Of course, this seems to have been removed already, which is a shame. 24.107.177.15 11:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Monica Jewish? I knew Phoebe rhymed Monica with Hannukah in her Holiday song, but is that the only evidence? I just assumed Phoebe was trying to come up with something that winter-related that rhymed with Monica. I know that the friends all do Secret Santa in one episode, which is more associated with Christmas. If she's Jewish, wouldn't that most likely make Ross Jewish as well? Dalton Imperial 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I did research before posting. Anyways, here's some evidence to support that Monica is at least technically Jewish. In Season 10, epsiode 9 (The One with the Birth Mother), this dialogue occurs:

Monica: Maybe she will. Uh! Why couldn't I have been a Reverend?

Chandler: You're Jewish.

Monica: Technicality!

Also, in the season 7 episode "The One with the Christmas/Holiday Armadillo", Ross tells Ben that he is part-Jewish and tries to teach him to sing "dreidel, dreidel". So it seems that Monica (like the Gellers) is at least part-Jewish, but I don't think Monica's religious affiliation is stressed enough to list her as a "Jewish fictional character." Dalton Imperial 02:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the episode in which Monica prepares a Christmas tree, and the fact that her tradition of hiding Christmas gifts is the plot of an episode. 24.107.177.15 11:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember in the Barbados episode, Ross goes to steal a Bible and Chandler tells "But it's the New Testament? Why would you need it?" clearly emphasizing the 'you' which signals that Ross would have no need of a New Testament. It's quite obvious from that one joke alone that Ross and Monica are meant to be Jewish. --Mezaco 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe the Geller siblings were raised as Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deniserogue (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a huge friends fan, I've always been confused about Monica and Ross' religion. Yes, they have been called Jewish by other characters and we know Monica had a bat mitzvah, but why do they celebrate Christmas with such enthusiasm? I always suspected it was because they were raised in a family with spouses that come from differing religious backgrounds (their father most-likely being Jewish and their mother possibly being a Christian). Anyone else see this? -hsxeric 16:59, 5 January 2012

how about her relationship with Richard? 'cause it was pretty serious before she hooked up with Chandler. HoneyBee

A Very good point. Does my addition sound OK? Dalton Imperial 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is she really called Geller-Bing? Because in The One With Princess Consuela she admits that she never changed her name.--Codenamecuckoo 08:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Either we should move the spoiler warning to the begining of the article or her name can't be Monica Geller Bing. Plus, for the majority of the series that wasn't her name. Savidan 20:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Bing" from her name. Firstly, there should have been a hyphen there (according to Phoebe's use), and second, I don't think she ever changed her name in the show. As of episide 14 of season ten (TOW Princess Consuela), she hadn't changed her name. There were only three episodes after that one, and in none of them was there any mention of her changing her name. -- Dpark 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the season 10 episode,

The One with Princess Consuela (original air date, 02/26/04), we discover that Monica never changed her last name when she got married. Neovu79 10:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The official friends website lists her as geller-bing Harmless 77 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes i believe that after Chandler found out, she changed her name to Geller-Bing. or else their children would have been given the surname of Geller, knowing Monica. the twins are Geller-Bing.Deniserogue (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an extremely avid watcher of this show (seen most episodes well over 20 times each), and I am almost positive that Monica's middle name is never mentioned. It is only noted that her middle initial is E when she invests in a stock with her own initials, MEG, in the episode "The One With the Two Bullies". Can anyone specifically mention when her middle name is mentioned? Thanks. crumbworks

The article says it was never mentioned (only the E), and also adds "Though some have guessed that the E. stands for Elizabeth". This means "Elizabeth" is only a guess, not the official name. So starting the article with "Monica Elizabeth Geller" is wrong. I'll erase it. Sorry for my bad English. --Ec 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross is Ross Eustace Geller; since Monica's his younger sister, wouldn't that make her Monica Eustace Geller?

Not nesecarily - Middle names aren't passed down the famlily line. For examle my middle name is Michael, by brother's is Peter.--Crestville 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Middle Name section in the article, partly because there is no reason for it to have its own section, but also because there is no evidence to prove that is her middle name. Eustace is a boy's name, and (as demonstrated by the other characters amusement when Chandler reveals his middle name to be Muriel, and when one of the female triplets is named Chandler) to give a girl a boys' (and vice versa) name would be an odd thing to do. Furthermore, middle names are not generally passed from sibling to sibling, but are more often than not dedicated to another family member such as a grandparent. - Randomwellwisher 12:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article has Erin as her middle name. her middle name was NEVER mentioned in the series, just her initials. Deniserogue (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a reason, why the middle name is still mentioned in the article?--80.169.134.162 (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this note very bizarre. Monica hates her mother more than her father and Chandler went from finding out Jack & Judy didn't like him to overcoming this in the space of one evening. And the show never really shows Monica as likely to confirm to such traditions. Timrollpickering 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the page, it lists Chandler and Monica's relationship as an "Affair", should this be changed to a "Secret Relationship"? 71.215.196.46 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although dictionary.com does define affair as "an intense amorous relationship, usually of short duration", I, too, tend to think of an affair as a relationship between two people where at least one is involved with/committed to another person. I left the first description as affair since the "intense amorous relationship" applies but later described it as a "deeper relationship", as opposed to a purely physical one limited to London. Dalton Imperial (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At which point in the Series 8 finale did Judy ignore Monica when she waved to her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snailsarefriends (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I never observed Judy ignoring Monica as well. -- Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.32.248 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in TOW Phoebe's Birthday Dinner. Judy came to the restaurant to take care of Emma. Deniserogue (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "The One with Princess Consuela", Monica admits that she never changed her name to Geller-Bing when she is unable to provide information for Phoebe. Since there is no further mention of this in the final episodes of the series, this suggests name is in fact not Monica Geller-Bing by the time the series comes to an end. If her name is simply Monica Geller, shouldn't this be the name featured at the top of the article, instead of Monica Geller-Bing? Stormwhisper (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Monica Geller/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the
   paying it forward. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Great job with the writing overall, it's succinct in general throughout the article. "Copyvio Detector" from GA Toolbox at top right of GA Review subpage here shows result of "Violation Possible 67.0% confidence" -- please trim and or remove and or paraphrase as many quotes as possible in article body text to get this down below 30 percent for those six (6) sources currently above 30 percent confidence for copyvio. Entire huge blockquote in sect Characterization and analysis is too much and bordering on copyvio and needs to be removed, or trimmed aggressively and moved into article body text, or paraphrased.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	Characterization and analysis - this type of info could be its own level 2 sect, titled Themes, perhaps. Critical response sect can be its own level 2 sect. Impact and legacy - strongly recommend breaking up into 2 separate sects, Impact and Legacy, in that order, making each their own level 2 sect.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .	Error reported in References sect - "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name ":40" defined multiple times with different content".
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citation problem at present with external links used in citations per "Checklinks" tool at top right of this subpage in GA Toolbox. At least nine (9) links have problem issues. This can be solved, please, by using WP:CIT citation templates.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article reliant primarily upon secondary sources, no issues here upon inspection.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Excellent job here with scope and structural organization and layout, well done !
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A bit of an issue with overall flow for the reader, a couple large paragraphs in a few sects. Consider breaking up paragraphs in lede intro sect to four paragraphs total, per WP:LEAD , with a bit more concise wording and structure, perhaps no more than four sentences per paragraph.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is indeed neutral with a great job done on the lede intro sect in this regard, well done here !
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I'm seeing constructive collaboration going on between editors upon inspection of article history including editors Checkingfax and Changedforbetter . Please keep an eye on random IP edits. Otherwise, looks okay here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Monica's apartment.jpg - please flesh out fair use rationale under the Purpose of use in article sect on image page, you can see a model I used at The Land of Gorch image in the infobox to argue why it is fair use rationale using numbered list. File:Courteney Cox as Monica Geller.jpg - this image can be deleted, as it adds no added value to article because we have alternative free-use images both in article at present and in Commons category at commons:Category:Courteney Cox.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Please add in-line citations to the two images in body text to back up factual assertions made in this captions. Last image in article of the apartment is too low down towards References sect and breaking up the page. Suggest moving it higher up in article body text and to the right side.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed as GA on Hold for a period of time roughly equivalent to seven days. — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written – DONE

• Done. I actually really like the idea of "Characterization and analysis" being its own section; would you settle for "Characterization and themes" perhaps? I think it's important to make that distinction, since the section really does more-so deal with her personality.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. "Reception" heading removed; "Critical response" changed to "Critical reception", and upped one to level 2 heading.
• Done. "Impact and legacy" upped one to level 2 heading. However, in the context of this article, the impact and legacy content generally overlaps. In loose summary, the section generally discusses the character's influence on neurotic, bossy women in modern-day comedy, the popularity of Monica's outfits, the effect Monica has had on Cox's career, and the mark left by and debate revolving around Monica's home. At this point, it is nearly impossible to decipher which is impact and which is legacy – in my articles, I tend to use the terms interchangeably – therefore I suggest leaving the heading as is. Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you've done so far, it looks much better! But there's still several more things to address, above. Thanks for your changes, the article looks much improved thanks to your modifications, — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Copyvio Detector results looks much better, just 3 sources quoted a bit too much, at this link -- http://www.vulture.com/2013/11/friends-monica-chandler-how-writers-paired-them-off.html and -- http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-18/entertainment/ca-14208_1_courteney-cox -- and http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119434/friends-20th-anniversary-nbc-sitcoms-legacy -- latest results at -- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Monica+Geller&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- Try to trim quotes from those 3 sources down below 30 percent. — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.I've managed to reduce all direct quotes to under 30%...all except one, that is, which continues to hover just above 31%. In the article, the quote reads, "Also writing for the Los Angeles Times, Glenn Whipp extolled Cox's tenure on Friends, enthusing that the actress successfully 'took a character loaded with obsessive-compulsive quirks and a goofy, overly competitive nature and fashioned a flesh-and-blood woman". Describing the actress' comic timing as 'impeccable', Whipp went on to write that Cox 'brought out Monica's insecurities in a way that turned self-deprecation into an art form'." I feel that this quote is such an eloquently worded review of Cox's performance I don't know what to remove. Are we able to let this one slide perhaps? Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's marvelous, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR POLITE RESPONSIVENESS ON THIS MATTER, IT IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR !!! :) — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome!--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research

• Done. "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name ":40" defined multiple times with different content" solved by another editor.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looks better. Still seeing issues with Checklinks tool http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Monica_Geller -- recommended how to fix those, above. Recommend archiving all hyperlinks, but at least those nine (9) problem ones. — Cirt (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. As the Wayback Machine wasn't able to detect previous versions of those links, I simply removed them; also, I only found issues with about three or four, which I eliminated.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage

• Done. Lede divided into four paragraphs: introduction of Monica, who she is and her general arc throughout the series; followed by casting and development; themes, "mother hen" role in the series and Cox's initial identification as the show's "lead actress"; and lastly reception and impact.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looks much better here. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Done captions under both images properly cited; apartment image re-positioned to be nearer to the topical paragraph.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Courteney Cox as Monica Geller.jpg -- still think this image can be removed and replaced by a free-use one (perhaps from same approximate time period, or more contemporary but higher resolution, either way) with one from commons:Category:Courteney Cox. — Cirt (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that none of the images in that category actually depict the character "Monica"; they are all simply free use candid shots of Cox appearing as herself. If free use is your concern, might I possibly be able to replace it with this one instead https://www.flickr.com/photos/62038770@N04/5879263583/ ?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that flickr image is also not free-use, unfortunately. But alright, your argumentation is sound -- perhaps just please add a lot more to the image page arguing in detail why there is no free-use alternative of a picture of the character. — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Also, "Purpose of use in article" section for the image "Monica's apartment" fleshed out; thanks for the reference you provided :-). Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Infobox image of Monica "Purpose" section also fleshed out.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks problems

http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Monica_Geller

Still shows twenty (20) problems with hyperlinks.

Problem defined as = anything other than a "0" or "200" rating, or even a "200" rating with a comment next to it would need to be addressed.

Once those are archived by the

Ohhhhh okay gotcha.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Started repairing some of the links. However, about three of them (so far) return with a result similar to this. Suggestions?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you try just clicking "Save this url in the Wayback Machine" ? — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it took a few tries, but I finally got it to work using that method. I think I took care of all of them :-). Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Given some thought to the suggestion number 3, above, which is optional only but just to consider as a way to pay it forward ?
2. Article lede intro sect looks pretty good.
3. Image placement and justification is better now.
4. Checklinks tool -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Monica_Geller -- shows one outstanding problem at -- The lasting impact of your favorite 'Friends' (info) [diamondbackonline.com]
5. Copyvio Detector -- looks pretty good --- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Monica+Geller&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- good job here !
6. Article flow looks a bit better.
7. Looks much better without the blockquotes.
8. Role - totally unsourced sect -- would be best to source this to ideally secondary sourced citations, and worst case, primary citations to episodes.

That's about it for now, hopefully should need just one more revisit and that'll be all. — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changedforbetter, can you please move your reply so it's below all my comments in this subsection? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Done. Will likely review two or three fictional character or Disney-related articles in the near future.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Done--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. *The Diamondback Online link gives me this when I attempt to archive it; there isn't even an option to save. Suggestions?--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Done.

5. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. Done. Inserted secondary sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:51, 19

I guess that source is okay as I checked the link myself. But it could be a problem if it goes dead in the future. Can you respond to my other queries, above, please? — Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe her name is Monica Geller-Bing. I know before she and Chandler got married she told him that she didn't want to change her name, but in one of the later Season 9 episodes, (I believe it is Episode 20, "The One With the Soap Opera Party," but I'm not entirely sure.) Phoebe yells at Monica and says, "MONICA GELLER HYPHEN BING." I know this is a continuity error, but it wouldn't surprise me if her name is actually Monica Geller-Bing. It's not the first Friends continuity error either. For example, Ross states in one of the earlier seasons that he only became a paleontologist because Carol dared/forced him to, and he hated his job. In the middle seasons, we begin to see his overenthusiastic passion about dinosaurs, even dating back to his childhood. I firmly believe that Monica's name is actually Monica Geller-Bing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.2.184 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkingfax Apologies, I only realized you had put that template after I made my last edit. Go ahead! :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• ( Talk ) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have just modified 8 external links on Monica Geller. 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/20160310204658/http://uproxx.com/tv/10-thing-you-might-not-know-about-the-friends-finale-on-its-10th-anniversary/ to http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/05/10-thing-you-might-not-know-about-the-friends-finale-on-its-10th-anniversary/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C627509%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C20754918%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.refinery29.com/fat-characters-tv-movies
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0%2C%2C20104006%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C637211%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.refinery29.com/best-fictional-apartments
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.refinery29.com/unrealistic-real-estate

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.

• 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) 18:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monica Geller. 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/20150918231640/http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Cox%2C_Courteney/Biography/ to http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Cox%2C_Courteney/Biography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074516/http://www.gusreview.com/monica-gellers-invisible-struggle-with-ocd/ to http://www.gusreview.com/monica-gellers-invisible-struggle-with-ocd/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150809173753/http://feminspire.com/fat-amy-monica-and-plus-size-women-in-mainstream-media to http://feminspire.com/fat-amy-monica-and-plus-size-women-in-mainstream-media/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925092011/http://pop-culture.net/C/Courtney-Cox-Arquette.html to http://pop-culture.net/C/Courtney-Cox-Arquette.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.

• 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) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monica Geller. 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/20150822143958/http://www.builddirect.com/blog/7-things-we-loved-about-friends-monica-gellers-apartment/ to http://www.builddirect.com/blog/7-things-we-loved-about-friends-monica-gellers-apartment/

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.

• 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) 02:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monica Geller. 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/20151117031559/http://www.0code.net/the-alternate-reality-friends-cast-will-blow-your-tv-loving-mind/ to http://www.0code.net/the-alternate-reality-friends-cast-will-blow-your-tv-loving-mind/

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.

• 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) 13:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]