Talk:Best friends forever

Proposed deletion

• I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Best friends forever, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Warden (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh

"Although some really may last a lifetime." Like OMG, this isn't a sentence. LOL. 68.51.66.32 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed that wording. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is a joke right?

It is terribly written and poorly sourced. The grammar is terrible, and the article is biased towards a middle- to upper-class American audience. 50.92.38.236 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably written by some middle school girls, hilarious but kind of cute lol. Anonywiki (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source for use of BFF

While I appreciate the effort to add sources, I'm really not sure that a casual reference to the use of the phrase "best friends forever" in a book on one person's experience of veganism is suitable for making the broad claim that the expression is "typical of teenagers and young people". The source itself only refers to "teenagers" for a start, but the bigger issue is that it's not an expert work on the subject; it's merely a single example of the phrase being used. Ideally we'd have a reference to a linguistic or psychological work here. My inclination is to remove it, but I wanted to give others the chance to discuss first. Gusworld (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Gusworld:, just passing through. I'm not sure I even understand the aim of this article, since it seems to simultaneously acts as a disambiguation page, but also attempts to describe adolescent and post-adolescent friendships. If we're trying to get into the nuts and bolts of what best friends are, culturally-speaking, or how best friendships impact human development, I do agree that the people who should comment on that are the authorities in the field of culture, anthropology, human behavior, child development, etc., but I also think such content makes more sense in an article on "best friendships" rather than in an article about the cutesy modern expression "Best friends forever". So, I guess I'm suggesting that the article makes more sense to me as a redirect to Friendship, or to a more appropriate article that gets into the nuts and bolts of "best friendships", if there is one. In its present state, the article is a wordier version of this, and has not improved much since 2010. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change article's focus

Proposal: I previously nominated this article for deletion, and I was wrong for doing so. The article in its present state is problematic to me, and I would like to propose one of a few options. 1) Merge whatever appropriate content into the general article on Friendship and/or 2) Convert the article into a disambiguation page for the various uses of the phrase "Best friends forever" as they occur in contemporary usage and/or 3) Re-focus the article on the phrase and about the phrase's impact on society, and remove the dubious statements that try to assert that "Best friends forever" is a type of friendship distinctive from the common concept of "best friends". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Support merge-and-disambiguate - the phrase and everything discussed on the current page can be adequately covered in Friendship, and there are enough things at the top to justify a disambiguation page. --Stfg (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Image caption scribed/inscribed

Hi. This may sound pedantic but I disagree with the current caption for File:Best Frends Forever - Golden Gate bridge guard rail 166.jpg.

• "The words "Best Friends Forever" inscribed ..." (6 April 2013)
• My change to "... scribed..."
• Reversion to "... inscribed..."

The Wiktionary entries for inscribe and scribe IMHO corroborate the understanding that scribe would be the more appropriate term (with engraving being a primary definition of inscribe and a secondary definition of scribe), but this has been contested. What do others think? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who reverted. Here is the OED entry for "scribe", used as a verb. The first section is about specific technical uses. The second section refers to (a) the action performed by a scribe; (b) a rare and dialect use. And here is OED entry for "inscribe". Doesn't "To mark (a surface, column, sheet, etc.) with writing or other characters, esp. in a durable or conspicuous way" fit this rather well? Scribe is not a widely used word outside technical contexts, and is not widely known. Its use here will obstruct understanding for many. If we don't like "inscribed", perhaps we should make do with "written". --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And here is Chambers for Scribe, v.t.: "to mark, score with a scribe, etc.: to fit by so marking: to incise: to write." The noun used here is defined as "a pointed instrument to mark lines on wood, metal, etc." --Stfg (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you call that hand-written text at the front of a book that goes, "Dear Cyphoidbomb, Hope you like Shel Silverstein! Love, Grannybomb"? They still call that an inscription, yeah? I'm okay with "written" if "inscribed" is gonna blow the spot up with fistfights. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As suggested, replacement with "written" would avoid ambiguity. However, I'm sure there's no danger of fistfights! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Support "written" - inscribe to me implies either gouging - especially in the context of metal - or fancy calligraphy. Scrawling in permanent marker does not merit that. BethNaught (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IT'S NOT "INSCRIBED". IT'S WRITTEN ON A RAIL WITH A FRIGGIN SHARPIE MARKER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F481:BA00:EC9F:9456:C2AB:2CAC (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a big problem worthy of internet shouting. The dictionary differs from your opinion. "to mark (a surface) with words, characters, etc., especially in a durable or conspicuous way." Is a surface marked? Yes. Are there words? Yes. Is it conspicuous? Yes. Is a Sharpie durable? Yes. Problem solved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Best friends forever. 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/20120224030204/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/21/community-returns-march-15-at-8pm-premieres-for-bent-best-friends-forever-and-betty-whites-off-their-rockers/121031/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/21/community-returns-march-15-at-8pm-premieres-for-bent-best-friends-forever-and-betty-whites-off-their-rockers/121031/

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) 23:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. General consensus that a requested move is not well suited for so significant a rescoping of this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Best friends forever → Best friend – We have separate Wikipedia articles for Girlfriend and Boyfriend, also for "Significant other", and not only for Friendship but also for specific types of it (Romantic friendship, Cross-sex friendship, Friend zone). Thus I am surprised both that there is no such an article for the topic of best friends and that this sentence has an article of its own.

I propose expanding the scope of this article to cover the topic of best friends in general. The sentence itself could have a section of its own if necessary. There's a bigger amount of academic research on the topic of best friends than one might initially expect [1], so there'd be stuff to write about in such an article. Most sources in this article seem to already cover the relationship in general rather than only the sentence. Even some of the text in this article itself already does this (see last paragraph at "Academic studies" section). The article needs rework anyway (some sources are informal, see OUPblog or barbaradelinsky.com; and some of the article's redaction is strange, see In 2010, the BFF concept was a part of a BFF contract "to encourage the signatories to work through their differences before splitting up."), and I think expanding its scope would be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Not sure if WP:RM is the best way to propose this change of scope, but I agree with the OP. 162 etc. (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This article is probably the primary topic for BFF, so that one should go to RM. 162 etc. (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is a change in scope too great for an RM to handle. Un-redirect and expand Best friend instead, and suggest a merge once it is sufficiently developed if you believe the pages are redundant. As an addendum, I would not be surprised if the name for this article should be BFF instead per WP:COMMONNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Right now the scope of the article is the phrase "best friends forever". A discussion about a change in the scope of the article can't go through RM. Also agree with above that removing the Best friend redirect and expanding it as an article would be the best course of action for now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move but support sentiment, it’s a good idea

Kowal2701 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.