Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 3

Not always post-watershed
A quick search of the BBC Programme Catalogue reveals that the August/September 1989 repeat of series 2 was shown at 8.30; that the October/November 1990 showing of Red Dwarf III was at 8:00 on BBC2; and that the May/June 1992 showing of series IV was at about 8.30-8.35. So "post-watershed" it may have been for the most part, but it wasn't so on every single occasion. 86.132.138.205 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some evidence that it was ever considered a post-watershed program by the BBC. Looking at the guide only confirms my personal memory.  For instance, every single one of the six episodes of Red Dwarf III was broadcast in 1990 at 2000 .  The same can be said of Red Dwarf IV . Other episodes in earlier series were sometimes broadcast as early as 1830 .  The fact that Red Dwarf was usually shown at later times seems to reflect scheduling decisions rather than any perception that the content was unsuitable for children. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou! Finally somebody talking sense on this.  86.134.122.253 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you were working at the BBC, would you pass, say, "Holoship" or "Pete" as suitable for children? It would be inconsistant with their usual policy (the BBC has some quite strict guidelines about children's television, if my memory serves me correctly).  The warning at the start of "Polymorph" about it being unsuitable for younger viewers (and "people of a nervous disposition") does seem to suggest that the show was normally regarded as family viewing, but it was quite clearly never meant as a children's show.  RobbieG 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, in particular, you select "Holoship" and "Pete" as unsuitable for children? As a very young child I'd hardly find "Holoship" as accessible as something like the film ET for example, sure, but unsuitable?  And "Pete"?!  It's the single most obvious example of the show specifically PANDERING to the child market, for heaven's sake.  There's no story there, just a load of flopping about like the Tellytubbies and getting into trouble.  No adult I know can endure the nonsense of "Pete".  Next question?  86.138.62.32 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, those were random examples, chosen purely because, off the top of my head, those were episodes that contained adult themes as plot elements. I know Pete was rubbish, but scenes like the "Boing" scene are clearly not aimed at kids.  I'm not saying that watching Red Dwarf could give a kid mental scarring or anything like that, or that the BBC necessarily considered it post-watershed.  I'm just emphasising that it was plainly never intended for children.  RobbieG 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, according to you, nobody can *know* Pete is rubbish. It's a matter of opinion, and yours is one I bet loads of eight year olds would disagree with.  The "Boing" scene, by the way, is just one of those things that is intended to make accompanying adult(s) laugh.  It isn't unsuitable for children - the scene would just go over a child's head.  Rather like various gags in the PG film Mrs Doubtfire.  I hope I've successfully laid this topic to rest.  81.157.212.118 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you haven't, really. Especially given that the only factual evidence of the suitability of the series is its BBFC classification. Lo and behold, a quick scan of the DVDs reveals that not a single series was classed as less than a 12. As conclusive proof as can be found, I feel, that the programme simply was not written, made or broadcast specifically for children - irrespective of the fact that children may have watched it. Seb Patrick 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Examples of sitcoms written for children include Press Gang, My Parents are Aliens and Rentaghost. The schedule for these shows is a giveaway - placed in the children's TV slots on their respective channels. Not a slot Red Dwarf has ever been given, or requested. Rob and Doug have repeatedly cited shows like Porridge, MASH and Steptoe and Son as influences. Now, these may be pre-watershed programmes, and they can certainly be watched and understood by children, but they aren't designed for that audience. Ditto more recent primetime sitcoms like 2 Point 4 Children, My Family or My Hero. Similarly, PG films like the pre-89 James Bond series or Liar Liar can certainly be seen and enjoyed by children, but that doesn't make them the primary target. There is a difference between 'suitable for a young audience' and 'aimed at a young audience'.
 * (As a side note, more episodes of Series VII and VIII recieved individual 12 certificates than in Series I to VI combined. Artistic dicussion, inappropriate here, makes no difference - the fact is the content was deemed LESS suitable to a young audience than ever before.)
 * It's also important to remember that the nature of the watershed has changed a lot since 1988; the specifics of what could be shown before and after have become a lot more locked down. Content considered unsuitable before 9pm now was available at 8pm then, because the slots were less prescriptive; there was a gradual shifting of tone from 7pm to 11pm. The F word would still have been very, very rare even after 9pm. We can't hold the schedule of the time to present-day standards.193.203.75.243 11:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit the nub of the matter with the use of the phrase "prime time". This whole "post watershed" discussion only came about because an anonymous user with - I believe - less than noble intent insisted on repeatedly describing the show as a children's programme. This meant that the lead was eventually somewhat compromised by having "post-watershed" put in there as a way of distinguishing it - as can be seen, though, it's by no means an appropriate phrase to describe the series. I think that calling it a "prime-time sitcom", however, would aptly sum up the audience it was pitched at - not specifically late-night, but by no means "for children", either. Seb Patrick 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're getting at when you say "we can't hold the schedule of the time to present-day standards". You mean that if Red Dwarf VIII were being examined for commissioning today (never minding that the BBC have taken a stance against the quality of the latter series and thereby potential future ones), then they probably wouldn't put it in an adult slot because they'd perceive the tone as, in general, aimed directly at children.  Thanks for clearing this up - I consider my previous position verified.  81.157.212.188 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "previous position"? That's strange, because the above comment is your first ever contribution to Wikipedia. It's rather difficult to sustain an argument, you know, if you're constantly posting under different anonymous IP addresses. Is that because you know that if you actually register an account, instead of hiding behind anonymity, you'll get banned? Also, isn't it strange that this IP address is the same as one that has just done searches for "kirk" and "mr flibble" on G&T? What's going on there? Seb Patrick 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Too much time on your hands mate. 86.142.44.73 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite probably, yeah. But you're hardly coming from a privileged position yourself, considering the amount of time you seem to reckon is worthwhile vandalising Wikipedia. Seb Patrick 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the Red Dwarf article, and I'd stop if you didn't keep reverting my vandalism. Ultimately you need me to do this so that you can do what you love doing, much as virus prevention software companies depend on the continued proliferation of computer viruses.  81.157.213.30 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody can seriously argue that the watersheds nowadays are tighter than they were in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Shows like EastEnders (BBC1, prime time slots, sometimes as early as 1600) are considered family viewing despite constantly dealing with adult themes and often showing violent behavior (it has been criticised for showing gangland violence).  Here's a typical episode synopsis, that show was broadcast at 2000. Compared to this kind of thing, the knockabout, scatalogical humor of Red Dwarf is very child-friendly.  Discussing sex is definitely not a post-watershed matter in the UK, although it may be taboo in some other countries. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have been unclear (now posting from home, BTW). By tighter, I mean that it's more strictly adhered to; it's considered a serious guardrail, particularly to specific language use. This simply wasn't the case in, say, 1990, where the move into swearing, sex and violence was more gradual across the evening, and many things were still held back to 10 or 11pm. The line was drawn wide, shall we say. The watershed has since become more definite, more useful as a clear and definitive marker. This is a different issue from whether TV, as a whole, has become 'more permissive', and able to tackle more overall mature content in an earlier slot - which I concur is happening. But it's really a separate point to the one I was trying to make - which is the way the line has become, out of necessity, more firm. Which is a good thing - it's made it much easier for uncut movies, for example, to get a proper airing. Because a channel can state that it was post-watershed. 20 years ago that wouldn't automatically justify use of the F-word.
 * None of which relates to Red Dwarf, though. Which I would call 'mostly inoffensive' rather than 'child-friendly'. Nor did I suggest that sexual discussion is de factor a post-watershed issue. 91.104.78.61 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I take your hint that we're drifting off the subject. I think that it's best if I go back to the initial discussion, which seemed to relate to somebody's perception that Red Dwarf is a children's show.  While it obviously isn't, and many of the broadcasts were post-watershed, I would say that it's widely perceived as a family show which children particularly enjoy.  --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Family show, maybe, but I don't think we can make even that claim without first providing evidence. I know plenty of people who enjoy Red Dwarf, but none of them is under the age of 15, and some of them are in their 40s.  I've yet to meet anyone (outside this webpage) who believes that Red Dwarf is particularly enjoyed by children.  RobbieG 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... this is probably more due to the age of Red Dwarf, and the fact it is rarely in the thoughts of today's television viewing audience (outside of specific fan sites of course), let alone the consciousness of today's trendy children. To most people, Red Dwarf remains an obscure programme cemented in the mindset of late eighties and early nineties, for which a hint of nostalgia is experienced whenever it's mentioned in more mainstream settings.  I'd say this is the reason that kids aren't into it now, but they also aren't really into the other kids programmes mentioned above like Press Gang and Rentaghost.  Something like Rentaghost is available on DVD for people who are now in their 20s-30s, even 40s, not people who are currently under 15. 86.142.44.73 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it's strictly unverifiable, but my kids certainly loved Red Dwarf as very young children. On the question of whether the BBC considered it to be family programming, this has already been established by the fact that it was occasionally broadcast during family viewing slots. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That still confuses 'suitable for' with 'intended for'. Monty Python was something I adored at the age of 12, and it was often shown in a slot I was around for. Doesn't make it a 'family show' - a title which assumes an intention. New Who is a family show, it cultivates that title carefully and knowingly. We have no reason to suppose that Dwarf was made with any such intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.78.61 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't argue that Red Dwarf was ever "intended" for children, or even specifically for family viewing. Perhaps my loose use of "family programming" is at fault.  I mean simply "not strictly for post-watershed broadcast." --Tony Sidaway 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all academic. There are people pulling in different directions on this and the views are all equally valid.  Until Grant and/or Naylor are interviewed as to their intentions nobody will be able to state either way for sure.  86.142.44.73 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the question at hand is not the wider issue (which we seem to have gravitated towards) but solely, in my view, whether the phrase "post-watershed", which was in the lead section for a while, was justified. On examination of the broadcasting schedule history, I removed that phrase  a week or so ago.


 * As to the history of the phrase "post-watershed", it seems that it was added on 13 March as a compromise after someone inserted into the lead a description of the show as "adult-orientated" (8 February) following this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Product-placement in Red Dwarf?
There's nothing in the article about the placement of products like Pot Noodle in Red Dwarf. Shouldn't this be included? - maybe we could have a section on the budget of the series, and include a sub-section on how they supplemented their BBC allowance with product-placement? Just a thought, mainly because I can't find anything about this elsewhere on the web and it might be useful within the wiki article. 81.151.172.154 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given how the Pot Noodle was the butt of jokes whenever it appeared on the show (Lister choosing dog food over pot noodle in "Marooned" and expressing amazement at finding an edible pot noodle in "Demons and Angels", for example) I don't think it constitutes product placement. Infringement, maybe.  RobbieG 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I always saw its being "the butt of jokes" as product placement of a negative kind, following the logic of the "I Hate Marmite" campaign. -- 86.132.200.17 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Any product references have to be cleared, but the BBC remit doesn't allow for advertising or product placement. If a brand is named, it's for a joke or a reference, never promotion. The line came first, then the clearance - products were never introduced for financial gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.99.38 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So essentially GNP had to clear use of Pot Noodle for episodes of Dwarf, but they wouldn't receive money for putting the product or logo on screen.  Thanks for clearing this up.  -- 86.132.200.17 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The meteorites embedded in the ship
According to the Re-Dwarf documentary on the Bodysnatcher set, the meteorite didn't just smack into the ship - it is built into it so that the crew can mine it for energy to power the ship. This is why the remastered / series VIII version of the ship is so symmetrical with two of them. You did not know this fact so I win, thankyou! 86.141.194.49 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I always thought that since it was a "Mining" ship that it was carrying it back to earth.. I dont see why it would be needed to power the ship as it has a ram scoop at the front to do this... Not saying your wrong i'm just confused by it. --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the Re-Dwarf documentary on the Bodysnatcher disc. Up until recently I reasoned that the meteorite had collided with the ship at some point, as the non-remastered version of the ship doesn't make it look as though it's supposed to be there.  However the remastered version of the ship has two of them, very symmetrically built into the ship.  I always hated this, presuming that they'd still collided with the ship but that the design depicted it really badly.  The Re-Dwarf documentary explains that the Red Dwarf crew are mining the meteorites for energy, but it (the documentary) doesn't go into depth.  86.143.182.72 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly the 'mining rock' idea was on Ed and Doug's mind for the remastered ship, and the two bays are deliberate and reflect this (Is this news? I thought it was a long-known idea). But, for the original version, it's not a completely locked-down fact for one simple reason - Rob and Doug's first novel, very specifically, discusses the rock attached to the 'old style' Dwarf: "[A] small moon, torn out of orbit, hand flung itself into the ship's solar plexus and was now embedded in the hull". It goes on to discuss the ship's only named surce of fuel - as collected by the Scoop. In interviews in the past, some have also mentioned that the ship was possibly BUILT around the moon, using the solid surface as a starting point for the massive vessel. So everybody's right. 193.203.75.225 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf USA Info
Could anything be added to the Red Dwarf USA section about Robert not telling the other cast members about going over to do the American pilot and Craig being told off the Make-up lady as stated in the Dwarfing USA? I think it caused a bit of a rift with the English actors. --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With reference to the below topic, can you see why adding this information would be superfluous to the article as a whole? Because this is the kind of extraneous detail that I think should be cut out, not added.  86.146.103.64 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't we cut the article down a bit?
I know it's not what the contributors want as they're pretty hardcore fans who want every little detail in but this article is ridiculously large and ponderous for people who just want to glean some basic information. Can't it be cut down a bit... or even more substantially than that? 86.143.182.72 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's so ridiculous. Maybe a little trimming wouldn't hurt it, but if you just want some basic information, all you need to read is the intro.  Nothing's forcing you to read the rest, since Wikipedia is not compulsary reading.  Also, if people wanted to include "every little detail", I think they would include literally every single detail.  This is a science fiction we're talking about - some fans are just plain obsessive.  Just look at the Star Trek and Doctor Who articles: they have whole pages devoted to each story.  At least we don't see that for Red Dwarf.  RobbieG (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with RobbieG. Apart from some trimming up it seems to have come along great. and like Robbie said there are plenty more wiki pages out there that have ridiculous ammount of info in it... after reading the Tardis page I think I could pilot it now --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well personally I think that when people start going in with the "trimming up" scissors they'll start to realise a lot more isn't needed and the article will have the potential to be cut down to a more reasonable length. Probably everyone won't agree what should stay though.  I predict a lot of people will just want to keep certain sections because they were themselves responsible for writing them.  This is one of the main problems, I think.  People aren't being objective.  86.133.167.86 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can say as only coming to this wiki page now for only a few weeks and not having anything to do with the adding of information only editing is that everything seems to be well balanced out for a show that is full of information. Maybe if enough people start saying the same thing then yes it would be time to go "trimming up" but for now the majority seems to like it. --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if we can be certain that "the majority" like it the way it is, as RobbieG says he's in support of trimming it, as did you in your post immediately prior to the one above, and you're the only two named people contributing to this thread. How many people would you like to "start saying the same thing" when you're not consistent across your own posts?  Majorities are usually "silent" anyway, and whenever anybody tries to trim out bits of the article those edits are reverted as vandalism.  It's only for the good of the article that the edits are made but people are so precious about what they've written that nothing objective can be done, in the end the hardcore fans win because they're here every day and get their way.  86.146.103.64 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that I'd rather this article was left alone than have anything major removed. I just don't think it would be a problem if someone wanted to trim it a little, that's all.  RobbieG (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Llewellyn's Kryten used to have an English accent!
Haha check out the deleted scenes on the Bodysnatcher set! Llewellyn's Kryten used to have an English accent and make weird Popeye the Sailorman noises with his mouth! Someone please add this fact to the article. 194.66.226.95 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's true that's so random. "I'm programmed not to lie! PHEEEEP!!" 86.135.215.120 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This must be why in DNA they say Kryten is more like Popeye than Deleuze when he says "I am what I am". 86.141.192.151 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Descartes not Deleuze, but yes you're probably right there. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup for peer review nomination
This article is very in depth, sometimes too much. Some sections need to be cleaned up or removed to conform to Wikipedia standards.
 * Recurring guest characters and Guest actors
 * Is this needed in the article? After all this info can be found on the List of Red Dwarf episodes.


 * Casting
 * Can someone place appropriate citations here. David Baddiel and Ronnie Barker??


 * Hiatus, changes, and disputes
 * Again a lot of uncited facts. While I know these to be true they still need to be backed up with appropriate citations. If no citations can be found the section may need re-worked.


 * Books
 * Once again citations people.


 * Mixed reactions
 * Guess... Yup, citations.

-- Nreive 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You speak my language my man! My vote is for complete article deletion.  86.133.10.226 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the article needs improving from its current state, which, although flawed, is still worthy of being here. The whole point of my statement, by pointing out what these minor flaws, is to get editors to improve this article. -- Nreive 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be a deadline for this process, and if it isn't met, the article should revert to a much earlier version (ie before all the superfluous details were added). 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a deadline, of what would have to be agreed on, but if the article is reverted to an earlier state then most of the recent citations added would be lost. I suggest that the article is overhauled and cleaned up. I could do this myself, but I would prefer to give the relevant contributing editors a chance to clean up or reference their own work. -- Nreive 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The more recent citations might be lost but then so would the superfluous uncited details themselves. We need to be sure what we want; at the moment the article is bloated and full of details that aren't needed at all, put there by fans whose efforts would be better spent setting up a fan-site for these things.  Earlier versions of this article don't have nearly as much peripheral content, and therefore won't require as many citations.  I suggest we revert to an earlier version to make the process of adding necessary citations less daunting.  194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I make a start on this then? Does anyone object if I revert the article to, say, a version from 2005?  86.141.192.164 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I object. --Lu Ta 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you object to the suggested restoration date, or to the whole concept of the restoration? I actually quite like this article as and of itself, but it isn't really up to wiki standards as it is, and i for one have nothing like the time to go through it and find (if possible) the relevant citations. It would certainly seem a more sensible approach to go back to a simpler version and then update as appropriate. Ged UK (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting to a version from years back was suggested by an IP (194.66.226.95) which has been used to vandalise a Red Dwarf article, namely Red Dwarf Remastered, several times. Moreover, the recent attempt to revert it to a 2005 version left it with broken links, and templates and images which apparently no longer exist. As far as I can see, it's simply not practical to just turn the clock back like that. --Lu Ta 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "vandalise"(!) 194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly that version was inappropriate, but I'd argue the idea is fair enough. Unless anybody has time to wade through the article and bring it up to wiki standards then what is a better idea?  86.138.56.62 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the editors that contributed the uncited sections appear not to be interested in the discussion here then I will look at editing the article in the next few weeks. If there are no available citations then the sections will be removed or re-worked. I propose to have this done by month end. Any objections let me know. -- Nreive 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything uncited should either be cited or go, yes, but I am opposed to the outright revertion of the article to an earlier stage. RobbieG (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this proves some of the points raised above. RobbieG is more concerned with preserving his contributions (only made in the last few months) than ensuring the article is the best it can be.  I say the following:  do what needs to be done to make this article work, and be as objective as possible.  I think it's good that Nrieve is doing it because he/she is detached from the contributions of individual editors.  86.141.192.192 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, and I resent that accusation. As a matter of fact, I haven't properly edited this article in months, and even then I don't know if I bothered to cite my edits (yeah, naughty of me), so the suggestion I was supporting would actually be more likely to delete my edits.  I was seeking the improvement of the article, and concerned that a revertion might do more harm than good.  Also, (no) thanks for the personal attack.  RobbieG (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Article cleaned up?
I've carried out some adjustments to the article, some minor, others more so.
 * Lead-in minor adjustment, added ref.
 * Re-organised section order, (changed order of Production, Characters, Spin-offs etc.) amended section titles slightly.
 * Production history - minor tidy, fixed refs.
 * Writing, producing, and directing - cleanup.
 * Red Dwarf Remastered - cleaned up section.
 * Regular characters - cleaned up.
 * Themes - adjustments.
 * Hallmarks - cleaned up.
 * Critical reactions and achievements - title changed slightly, added awards, refs etc.
 * Spin offs - (amended title slightly to Spin-offs and merchandise) Merged DVD/VHS sections, cleaned up the books, Tongue Tied, Movie and specials. Added refs. Added Red Dwarf Smegazine to section.
 * Final fix of other refs not formatted with "cite web" template.

If there's still anything needing added or fixed then please do so. I hope to get around to doing an in-depth proof read of the article soon. -- Nreive (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All credit to you for the reshuffling and cleaning up - there's probably still some material that could stand to be chopped (and I say that as someone who originally wrote a fair bit of it) - but it's definitely looking in better shape. The structure is better, the range of images improved, and it's extremely useful having all the citations. Shame about the frequent and repeated vandalism going on, but if that can be kept on top of, it's looking in much better shape. Might be worth updating some of it, though, with information from the recent Doug Naylor interview as regards the movie/potential animated series... Seb Patrick (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If my opinion is of value here, I say repeated vandalism of the article is a good thing and I'm looking forward to it being unlocked again in the future. Until then, I do hope you enjoy your new Christmas toys.  81.153.81.183 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All opinion's are of value, though I must ask what on Earth you mean by "I say repeated vandalism of the article is a good thing and I'm looking forward to it being unlocked again in the future". You surely realise that this goes against Wikipedia policy, and an attitude like this will get you banned rather quickly ;). I had it protected exactly because of the anon. IP vandalism - if that continues when the protection expires, I will just get it protected again, possibly for longer. The Islander 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I do understand that it's against Wikipedia policy, but what am I to do when it pleases me so much to annoy Red Dwarf fans? Locking the article is a reaction in itself, only confirming to me that I'm succeeding in winding you up.  Looking forward to continuing this once the article is unlocked, however briefly - and do check out all the other articles on Red Dwarf episodes, characters, ships etc, as these won't be let off if the main article stays locked!  Revert the vandalism, and keep on reverting it, every single moment that you have free! [winks in a slightly smug, TheIslander-esque way]  86.158.206.52 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Should have done Rimmer in black and white
They should have done Rimmer in black and white shouldn't they. 86.157.96.115 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the original plan but the process was too costly or complicated at the time - see 'Red Dwarf Magazine' section. -- Nreive (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The "I've been to Titan" drinking game
I have a few questions about the "I've been to Titan" drinking game (as mentioned here: http://www.groovetown.co.uk/songs/displaysong.php?id=458&cid=29), firstly do we think this should be mentioned in the article, and secondly is this actually based on another drinking game at all, or is it unique?--Hm2k (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you being serious? 86.133.245.210 (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've played that as a non-Red Dwarf related drinking game, and good as it, I don't think we can say it's encyclopedic, so i don't think we can include it in here Ged UK (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

David Ross
I was suprised to see, that David Ross's character Bio , had no mention of him presenting "scrap heap challange" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Textkingjoe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not, mainly because he didn't. You're muddling him up with Robert Llewellyn, who played Kryten except for his first appearanceGed UK (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we keep the mouse and spacehopper pictures?
I know they're not relevant and they're difficult to defend but I liked them. They brightened up the place. 138.37.254.22 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You sound like an interior designer! Ged UK (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a serious question nonetheless. For all their eccentricity, I miss them.  138.37.254.22 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, serious answer: I think you've answered your own question. THey're not relevant to the article and don't add anything encyclopedic to it. Whilst they would make a fanpage more interesting to look at, here they just draw attention to themselves and away from the point of the article, which is the show Ged UK (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand this, which is why I asked. However, it would be nice to have them back.  They were doing no harm.  90.195.137.153 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tongue Tied
In the Bodysnatcher documentary for series 2, people speak of "what Craig and Danny did" with Tongue Tied, as opposed to what they were initially given by Howard Goodall. The impression I get is that Craig and Danny went off with the demo and made the music different somehow (making it more "groovy" by some accounts), but can anyone be more specific about their contribution to this? I was unaware of this prior to the "It's Cold Outside" documentary and do not know where else this information can be found. Something interesting for the wiki article maybe? 86.133.245.210 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not suitable for the main article, as it doesn't inform the nature or content of the show and would only make things even longer. But you can hear Howard Goodall's original demo on the Bodysnatcher DVD, which gives a strong idea of how the style f the final version differed from what he intended. To hear Howard's side of the story, check out the Series VI DVD documentary 'Settling the Score'. The gist is that Howard was going for a 'Diana Ross/Chain Reaction' style, where Danny and Craig wanted to do something more modern sounding. 'Modern', that is, for 1988... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.75.225 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Information not promotion" I suppose that's called Andrew? Heh, like it.  86.133.163.84 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. Is there any information anywhere about the way in which Craig and Danny were even *granted* any influence on this though?  At this time Doug and Rob had to limit their response to the show as writers to a couple of questions or suggestions like "more colour to the set please".  And yet Craig and Danny, naughty actors who kept turning up late, were able to alter one of Goodall's compositions, not beyond recognition but still to some reasonable extent.  It just seems odd to me that this wasn't addressed before the "It's Cold Outside" docco, that's all, and then frustratingly briefly.  And it seems the kind of thing that Red Dwarf fans would normally be leaping over themselves to discuss this long after a DVD release.  194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody cares about this. You're welcome!!81.157.222.217 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review?
The article has gone through a lot of changes in the past couple of months. References added, sections trimmed down and cleaned up. I think it should be put through a Peer Review. What do other editors think? -- Nreive (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's definately time Ged UK (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What does it involve? 138.37.254.22 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * see Peer review for more info Ged UK (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Imagine having the time to read all that. 90.195.137.153 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well someone obviously had the time to read through larger FAs like The Simpsons, Doctor Who, Blade Runner, Halloween and many more... I admit that the article can go on a bit, but that's what the Peer review is for - to advise on what is working and what is not. --Nreive (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Singer
Who (female) sang the intro lyrics? --andreasegde (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Howard Goodall's webpage (he wrote it), it's Jenna Russell Ged UK (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. She sang the closing lyrics and there are no intro ones.  I claim my five pounds.  90.195.137.235 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Series --> Seasons
Hi! You'll be glad to know I've gone right through the article and corrected appearances of the word "series" with the word "seasons", which is more particular to the way we talk about connected television episodes and gets rid of all the ambiguity about series/parallel (electricity) and all that kind of thing. No problemo! 92.4.59.173 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Please go take a long hard look at WP:ENGVAR ;). Talk Islander 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just done a keyword search. No instance of the word "series" in the context that this article uses it.  138.37.254.57 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean a keyword search of WP:ENGVAR .That means using the version of English appropriate to an article .In this case an article about a British subject you use British English and in Britain they use the word "series" whereas in America you use the word "season" .Garda40 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Red Dwarf is a "series".  Any number of episodes in a row is a "series".  But the specific word that is used for 6 or 12 or 24 episodes that were recorded and broadcast in one batch is "season", regardless of UK or US bias.  These differentiations are made because they reduce confusion - we know what we mean when we say "season", but "series" is ambiguous, even though, strictly speaking you are correct, it is possible to say that episodes 1 to 6 of season three are a series of episodes, as much as they are a "run".  However I am sure that by now you understand, and realise that we should be going with "season".  87.194.73.214 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm affraid you're mistaken. In the US, a set of episodes produced and transmitted in one batch (often with one overall storyline etc.) is called a season. In the UK, this is refered to as a series, and not a season. It's simply two different words for the same thing, one in British English, and one American English, and per WP:ENGVAR, we stick to British English in this article. Talk Islander 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you say that a series of 6 episodes of the series Red Dwarf is called a "series"? Okay.  I was taking my lead from Doug Naylor in the documentaries referring to them as "seasons".  87.194.73.214 (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it quite ammusing that you've answered your own question: "So you say that a series of 6 episodes of...". I'm taking my lead from standard British English, not Naylor or anyone in particular. Talk Islander 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find it amusing, but this shows you don't understand. Let me explain again, in more simple terms.  The word "series" has several meanings, including "a run of episodes".  This is why I wrote "a series of 6 episodes" - however, these could be episodes 4-6 of season 4 followed by 1-3 of season 5, if they were watched in this order.  This is what is meant by a "series" of episodes - any number of episodes watched in a row, like you would have a series of events or a series of objects.  I wrote "a series of 6 episodes of the series Red Dwarf" to show that we also use the word "series" to describe the Red Dwarf programme itself.  I don't believe that there is a UK or US vernacular issue going on here, as Doug Naylor uses the word "season" to designate those that are recorded and broadcast in one batch (see any Red Dwarf DVD documentary).  Surely you can see it's simpler to use this word when we use the word "series" for those other two meanings, and it's not a matter of UK or US bias?  Again, I ask you to refer me to the precise place in that WP:ENGVAR page that states this is a UK/US issue as so far you've just very smugly indicated that this is what it is, rather than showing how.  Stating the rule doesn't show that this is a matter of the rule, and since I'm the only one who has so far developed a coherent argue on this, I'm waiting for a proper reason as to why we shouldn't be using "season" in the article rather than "series".  You'll note that I use the word "programme" and not "program", so I am aware of the WP:ENGVAR concept - please don't just throw this back at me again.  Thanks in advance.  78.86.157.90 (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is finding this amusing at all. "Season" is an American term where as "Series" is used in the UK. It's that simple. The DVDs have "Series" on the cover and the official website also uses "Series I", Series II" etc. I don't see any reason to use "season". I have never seen this term used in reference to Red Dwarf. WP:ENGVAR states that "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." - Nreive (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How often do we take DVD covers to assist our use of a language when we're making an encyclopedia entry? There is nothing unique to be had with Red Dwarf - we don't call three episodes a "byte", and we shouldn't be calling six episodes a "series", unless you can provide specific and significant evidence that this is the primary term used within the UK.  I have already reasoned above why "season" is otherwise a less confusing term if we can't agree either way.  78.86.157.90 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the DVD covers -- let's see what the BBC say themselves on their own website for Red Dwarf: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/reddwarf/ I refer you to sentences such as "From series III onwards, they were joined by a mechanoid servant called Kryten, and from series VII, by the attractive human female, Kochanski." Or "Ratings for the first series (February to March 1988) were not too impressive, but a second series had already been commissioned and the BBC kept the faith. Series II was a ratings success.", if you didn't like the previous one. They go on to say "In series III, the insecure mechanoid, Kryten, became a permanent crew member...for series VII, with the departure of Rob Grant...Rimmer returned full time for series VIII..." Maybe it's not just Red Dwarf. Let's see what they say about, ooh, "Who Do You Think You Are?" which is a program tracking celebrity's family history. A very quick hunt finds http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/wdytya_celeb_gallery.shtml which is the gallery for, err, Series III. Maybe it's just the BBC! Well, let's see about a drama series on ITV. First thing that I found: http://www.itv.com/Drama/cult/supernatural/Episodeguide/default.html That lists the episodes in, err, the third series of a programme called "Supernatural". Sorry, it's just British usage.88.66.25.37 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, take a look at American and British English differences, which is cited in WP:ENGVAR as being a good reference for the differences in British and US English, and ironically enough uses the example of 'Series 3 of Red Dwarf'. You may think it nonsensical, but the community sees it as a standard to be followed, as would most others not involved with Wikipedia. Talk Islander 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The community" is not a valid measure here. This is an encylopedia, not a fan page.  Please reason with logic rather than spurious conjecture, and please provide precise evidence when you speak of "standards [of the language] to be followed".  78.86.157.90 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can disregard these comments. I'll accept American and British English differences as evidence for your case.  78.86.157.90 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. How many times do British people need to say to you "Series" is used in Britain to denote "Season" in America? "Red Dwarf" is a programme, and it had 8 series. "Friends" is a program and had God knows how many "Seasons". Do you want to be linked to a dictionary? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71944&dict=CALD and specifically the example "I missed the second episode of the series so I don't know what's going on now." It's just common usage. What do you actually want, to phone everyone in the UK to canvass opinion?88.66.25.37 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You made this comment AFTER the person accepted use of the word "series", when an adequate source of information was received. Two or three people arguing one way or another is not adequate proof for an encyclopedia, and this has been the problem here.  Given that NOT everybody in the UK chooses the word "series" (see the Doug Naylor example above), this entire position is academic.  As far as proper English (UK or US) is concerned, "season" makes more sense for this purpose (and is less confusing), but we're going with "series" because of the purported UK/US difference argument, as per wikipedia rules/guidelines.  Since the situation has been settled your contribution appears argumentative.  217.171.129.77 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to be argumentative here, only trying to provide further evidence of the UK usage of "series" as opposed to "season". Whether Naylor said "season" during a particular documentary or DVD commentary is neither here nor there, as I have personally heard him mention the word "series" on other occasions. In this modern world it's very easy to slip out the odd American term while discussing television. Now let's put this old discussion to rest please. -- Nreive (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As Nreive said, I wasn't trying to be argumentative -- you said "You made this comment AFTER the person accepted use of the word "series", when an adequate source of information was received" but I didn't see him accept anything, and that he'd asked for evidence, which I also didn't feel had been sufficiently supplied. I agree that in one of my comments my tone was rather sarcastic, which I'm happy to apologise for, but to my mind he was being argumentative on a point which has been debated endlessly across Wikipedia. As for "Two or three people arguing one way or another is not adequate proof for an encyclopedia", I agree entirely, which is why I provided links to a dictionary definition and to the websites of some British television channels, to provide evidence that the stations themselves habitually use the word "series". If examples from the media themselves isn't sufficient then Heaven alone knows what is. Again, I'm not meaning to be argumentative, and I apologise for my crappy tone in my posts which, nonetheless, I feel provided evidence of the British usage outside of Wikipedia itself.88.64.182.125 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "acceptance" is the one above your initial post. It is dated 30th March:  "You can disregard these comments.  I'll accept American and British English differences as evidence for your case."  It's not easy to see because your contribution is directly underneath rather than indented by a further step.  217.171.129.69 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, no need to prolong this post, User 88.64.182.125 has apologised for any offense. The use of "series" for a British subject has been accepted - case closed. Now let's move on. Nreive (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review
Obviously a substantial candidate for GA, but some comments
 * 1) some clumsy phrasing, and loose grammar, eg in the intro origins come from is odd, maybe "origins were" or "originated", character driven should be hyphenated. Next section: Lister's cat Frankenstein and her kittens "Frankenstein" should be between commas. "crew encounter" should be "encounters" There are other minor copyedit issues, please check carefully
 * 2) In section and plot, shouldn't Hologram be capitalised? Wasn't the feline character always described as the Cat, not just Cat (also called the cat in spin-off section)? Felis Sapiens, as a scientific name, should be Felis sapiens (as should Homo Sapienoids) (in italics, genus capitalised, species lower case) and has a linked article as shown
 * Lister often called the Cat just "Cat". Eg:  "Cat, come ON!" 87.194.73.214 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This first read-through appears to highlight mostly copyediting and style issues, I'll read through again later, but in the meantime please fix the above and check for other minor infelicities Jimfbleak (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Characters: Kryten's main function is a sanitation mechanoid and has an overactive guilt chip. doesn't make sense
 * 2) Religion also plays a part in the series as the overall religion theme of the Cat species means??
 * 3) Naylor explaining at a Red Dwarf Dimension Jump convention that the film has been rejected by people stating that they think it's funny, but it's not what they're looking for at the moment. no proper verb
 * 4) Taking place out of the continuity of the series, ??
 * 5) further reading, ext links - could be in alphabetical order?
 * 6) Mixed reactions and achievements - must be a better heading?
 * Thanks for the notes. I have made the changes to these issues and I will continue to look for copy edit problems. --Nreive (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tidied a bit, just three minor issues before I pass.
 * last sentence of Themes section still appears largely unintelligible
 * "Cadmium II" has variable capitalisation, don't mind which, but should be consistent
 * As above, should Hologram be capitalised? If you assure me it's correct in this context, that's fine, otherwise lower case.
 * Jimfbleak (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to clean up that "themes" sentence a bit. Seb Patrick (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Seb. I've also made the cadmium capitalisation to be inline with the cadmium article and made them consistent throughout. The hologram capitalisation has also been made consistent throughout as "hologram", "hologramatic" etc. -- Nreive (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What else is in the "same shared reality" as Red Dwarf? It doesn't even share consistency with itself!  87.194.73.214 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page needs another archive. However, for convenience's sake I would suggest that we leave a bot message at the top, and let a bot do it automatically. If so, we ought to reach a consensus on the archive period; I would suggest 30 days, but I'm not hugely fussed either way. Any thoughts? Ged UK (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the bot archiving, but I think 30 days is a bit short. Looking back at the top of the page the posts go back to Sept '07. Maybe every 90 days to archive. - Nreive (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, no other comments, so I'll set it up for 90 days and see how it goes :) Ged UK (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Dwarf page moved to Red Dwarf (TV series)
I see that someone has moved the page resulting in many red links, most notably the archives, not to mention all the links that are now directed at the disambig page, most notably the LOCE request. I thought this issue was discussed and agreed upon before? This move should have went through the requested moves page first. There's a lot of sorting out red and re-direct links if this is to remain. -- Nreive (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you message Anthony. I think he's an admin, so he must have had a good reason, and hopefully he might have some shortcuts for fixing the links. Ged UK (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthony is innocent, I proposed that in the RM (as uncontroversial). There is a mismatch between Red dwarf (star) and Red Dwarf (TV series). Red Dwarf should be a disambig instead.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just meant that Anthony did the moving, so he'd be a good place to start, but I guess that's unnecessary now? What's RM? Ged UK (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For future reference a move of this type should have been proposed and discussed in conjunction with the Astronomy project, rather than just being listed as an "uncontroversial" move. (It affects two significant articles that combined have well over one thousand links across the site.) --Ckatz chat spy  18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but there are thousands of fans ;) Well, Red Dwarf and Red dwarf were misleading.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I've reverted the move for now, and will notify Anthony. The idea is sound, but given the sheer number of links to the pages (over 1500) there should be some sort of discussion first, if only to ensure there is a plan for the cleanup. Further to this, it would be appropriate to consider changing the links first and then move the pages. (For example, change all of the Red Dwarf-related links from Red Dwarf to Red Dwarf (TV series), as the latter currently redirects here already, and address the double redirects as well.) --Ckatz chat spy  19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree this should be moved, as the most obvious answer someone is looking for if doing a search of "Red dwarf" is the actual phenomenon. 24.24.211.239 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the proposal - in theory - but there's a lot of fixing links before this can happen. Also stating that Red dwarf the star is the "obvious" search wanted by someone is presumptious. Do you have a reliable and notable source for this info? ;) -- Nreive (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact should be mentioned it was widely avalible on the internet as a streaming view yet the BBC aggressively pursed any site that hosted it more so then any other tv show. Perhaps mostly due to the sensation/fans based upon the net? cheers, Fish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.101.186 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim
>The plot of the special is unknown, but is speculated to be similar to "Earth", the intended final episode of Series VIII, which was cut because of budgetary constraints

I call garbage (maybe garbage world?) on this claim. Internet speculation rarely counts for anything, let alone for something there is virtually zero real information about. 58.174.227.239 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends where the rumours are. If they're from reliable sources then it's probably OK. --Ged UK (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It says 'source required' after it, so it's not from any source, as far as the footnotes are concerned. 58.174.227.239 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, i didn't realise it was already in the article. I'll review it now. --Ged UK (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Dwarf on NBC
I've never seen Red Dwarf on NBC, so I have to buy the DVDs to watch it. Does anybody know why? -- MISTER ALCOHOL TC 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably due to the 'cult' nature of the series - I suppose NBC don't think they'd get enough viewers if they aired the programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.76.151 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but they should show it often. -- MISTER ALCOHOL TC 20:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Invented words
Theres a redirect to a section called Bazookoid#Invented_words if you search for bazookoid. Did it ever exist? Why was it deleted? --Sturm55 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm whether Smeg is a word invented by the Red Dwarf writers, or was it use prior to the broadcast of the show? I seem to remember the word being in circulation earlier than this, and I believe I have come across annecdotal evidence that it is derived from the word Smegma.


 * See Smeg (vulgarism) - there's a reference that the word was around as early as the mid-1970s — and also claims that it traces back to "smegma". - Salmanazar (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also been on fridges and so on for decades. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Along with this it might be useful to actually explain in the article what the programme makers intend the word "smeg" to be, ie it is a joke in itself through repetition rather than actually signifying anything in particular. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

'H A6 6 E R ?
Can someone tell me what all that was about? magnius (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEANS applies, but see User:Grawp. Long term page move vandal. All fixed now. Pedro : Chat  00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Should it be pointed out...?
Should it be pointed out in the article that all the people who rate the scripts for the new Dave specials highly also think that series 8 is superb? Llewellyn thinks that series 8 is "distilled Dwarf", while Ellard places series 8 as his second favourite ever. In fact the only person who ever had the courage to say that series 8 isn't funny (Norman Lovett) is now out of a job! 87.84.248.99 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really has any notability, but if you have a link to the site then we can have a look :) magnius (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to the "mixed reactions" section with appropriate footnotes once we're able to view the specials retrospectively and can identify their place in the programme's history. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't bother with this for heaven's sake. I really doubt anybody is being serious when they say they like series 8, and what do you expect to gain by drawing this correlation anyway?  92.40.40.214 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any correlation in mind, as yet. It may be worthwhile to draw parallels between these specials and "historical" Dwarf as the costumes do deliberately evoke the classic series.  Fans are speculating here and there that with the Red 4k cameras and no laughter track, the specials will likely have a tone reminiscent of season VII; others suggest that with Naylor's present writing style and the cast's tendency to gurn and leap about, the specials will probably be most like season VIII.  In any case, I don't suggest we make any correlations in the article until the new specials have been aired and fan's reactions have been mixed, as it were.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when has that been the logo?
The font is wrong, and the earth image is pointless. I've tried to revert the logo to the correct one, but I can't find a link for it in the history anywhere. 92.40.184.217 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Fixed, though it might take a while to get through your cache. Someone changed the logo file itself - no idea why, but you're quite right, it was wrong. Talk Islander 09:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Black to Earth "logo"? A certain user has been trying to add that to the article for some time now. Very persistent. Rehevkor ✉  14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No of series
Does this 3 part special count as a series? The three episodes count towards the sum total of episodes, so should the 3 parter count towards the number of series being upped to 9? You could argue that it isn't (as far as we know) numbered, but then neither were series one or two to the best of my knowledge, it only started being numbered from 3 onwards didn't it? magnius (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a series in the same way that the three 1996 Christmas specials of Only Fools and Horses are a "series" of specials. A series means a sequence.  These three episodes do not, however, constitute a season.  Perhaps a half-season.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Season is irrelevant within the realms of RD anyway, that is an American term :P magnius (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really irrelevant. There's a debate going on above for this reason :P  92.40.117.155 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Online/ teaser advertising for "Back to Earth" specials, plus some minor remarks
Might be worth (literally) a sentence or two on some of the marketing for the specials, if it's been remarked upon elsewhere and can be cited. The campaign currently includes three second teasers, online Easter eggs, and alternate reality-style website trails that reward you with "making of" style footage. Seems pretty unusual for a mere TV sitcom (or maybe I'm becoming easily impressed in my old age!).

I think this is a good article. My only complaint is that a couple of sentences seem a tiny bit "off" in terms of tone (which is normally spot-on). I thought the following lacked a bit of gravity:

...Rimmer who is, in the cliffhanger ending, left stranded alone to face Death (and promptly knees him in the groin and flees)

Warden Ackerman (played by Graham McTavish) would also turn up to torment the imprisoned pair.

Spaceships that tried to escape Earth were hunted down 'until only one remained... Red Dwarf.' Guessing this one is a quote but should prob'ly be in quote marks if that's the case.Señor Service (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusingly phrased paragraph
I don't understand this paragraph:
 * The show's highest accolade came in 1994, when an episode from the sixth series, "Gunmen of the Apocalypse", won an International Emmy Award in the Popular Arts category. In the same year the show was also awarded 'Best BBC Comedy series' at the British Comedy Awards, and attracted its highest ratings — of over eight million viewers — by the eighth series in 1999.

Does it mean the show was awarded best comedy series in 1994 or 1999? Perhaps the second sentence could be reworded to be a bit clearer? -- Malvineous (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It reads pretty clearly to me, but it could need a bit of a rewrite anyway. magnius (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this need for a rewrite. It's subjective that the award came as the show's "highest accolade".  Probably the whole article needs a bit of a rewrite anyway though, to be honest, as well as cut down in length considerably.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is something like 10000 words - definitely too long for a television comedy wiki in my view. Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_feather, merely 1000 words.  The (admirable - don't get me wrong) enthusiasm of Red Dwarf fans is such that superfluous detail has been layered and layered in to the extent that the casual viewer has to wade through all manner of distractions if they simply want to glean the basic facts.  If there's a vote for shortening this page in the next  couple of months since the programme is back in the news, I'm all for it.  I'd say knock around 3000-4000 words off, shouldn't be difficult, just time consuming.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing Red Dwarf to Birds of a Feather is pretty redundant, the fact that the RD article is ten times longer is because there is a lot more to say about RD than there is BoaF. The article length is fine imo, but some sections may need individual attention. magnius (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that there isn't more to say about RD; there are just a greater number of very enthusiastic fans who want all those minute details documented on the wiki page. Which is fine, but it clutters the article and makes it impenetrable to visitors.  Trust me, I am one!  I say crop it down to 3000-5000, which would still make it three-five times the length of the BoaF article, and then link from that to several stub pages on the Red Dwarf Movie and Red Dwarf Hiatus and Red Dwarf Ships or whatever, with all the layers of detail people think is necessary.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article is not the solution - you can't create stub pages for the movie or hiatus section as there just is not, and will not be, enough detail for these. I must admit, I haven't found the time necessary to help out with the article as I used to, so it's nice to see enthsuisiastic users coming in to add some info, trim up others, etc. As for the article being too long in general, well if we look back at Red Dwarf's Good Article state, then we can see that it hasn't really expanded much since then. Having said that, there are areas that stick out as excessive: the Red Dwarf: Back to Earth and DVD releases sections are overlong. I see that the Back to Earth has an article of its own - and a good one at that - so perhaps only a paragraph is needed for the main article? The DVD releases are shown in the List of Red Dwarf episodes, so this might be able to go? Overall, I think the article is pretty good, and we should be pushing for GA status rather than breaking the article down. Nreive (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

live audience ?
The article states that season 7 was "no longer shot towards a live audience"

What does that mean for the seasons 1-6? How where they recorded? 84.58.168.3 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In front of a live audience. Talk Islander 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying, most of Red Dwarf has been filmed in front of real audience? Is the laughter that sometimes appears from them? I think this aspect should be mentioned directly (not only indirectly). 84.58.168.3 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Series 1-6 was definitely filmed in front of a live audience - I thought 7 and 8 were as well, but perhaps not. Back to Earth definitely isn't. Talk Islander 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 was shot without an audience, but shown to an audience and their reactions transferred to the broadcast episode. The extended episodes available on the DVD do not have an audience response added.  8 was shot with an audience again, as per 1-6.  Why they laughed though is anyone's guess ;-)  87.84.248.99 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of season
Has someone decided to change all reference to series, show, programme and blindly replaced with the word 'season'?
 * This makes a lot of the text unreadable - confusing the distinction between the entire series (all episodes ever made) and particular series / seasons (e.g. the first series)
 * As a British show shouldn't we be using British technology - series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.89.95 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that "season" means a designated bunch of consecutive episodes that were made to be together, so the first six episodes for example, written, rehearsed and performed as one "set", would be called a "season". But we use the word "series" to refer to anything that we experience serially.  So I guess that it would be more truthful to say that "season one" is a "series" of six episodes; "season eight" is a "series" of eight episodes.  Something like this, but I guess we could say either way is correct to avoid conflict:  when someone says "series three" we know it means the third season.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, we could follow WP:ENGVAR, and use 'series', the UK term. This is, after all, a UK show. Talk Islander 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right; I forgot that dogma trumps logic. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ENGVAR is perfectly logical, otherwise it wouldn't be followed :). Talk Islander 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Dwarf-Complete-BBC-DVD/dp/B00006JI1V/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1235580708&sr=8-3
 * I can see what you're saying 87, but the definition you have there is the american definition. In England, we say series for any group of episodes written, rehearsed and performed as one set. We also say "complete series" for... well, the complete set of series. Explained pretty well in WP:ENGVAR. So, while it might seem totally logical to you to say season, to me, it makes no sense. --  WORM MЯOW 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR actually says nothing whatsoever about the distinction between series and seasons. It remains a matter of personal preference as far as I can see.  I am, by the way, a UK citizen and find the word "season" to be just as ubiquitous, if not more so, than "series", so I really don't get how this is a UK/US difference (although I accepted you at your word until I checked the WP:ENGVAR page and realised no such difference exists!)  The point, I think, is that "series" is currently being used in the article to mean both the run of 52 episodes as a whole, and separate batches of 6 or 8 episodes that were written/filmed at the same time.  I don't see why distinguishing between them isn't taken to be a good idea.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, WP:ENGVAR doesn't deal with this directly, all it does say is that we should consistently stick to the language that the program is associated with - and after a few further clicks we get to American and British English differences, which does state the difference specifically. However, obviously, the AmE-BrE article is an article, not a policy or a guideline, making for quite a weak argument! I apologise unreservedly for misleading you there!--  WORM MЯOW 09:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you compare the archives here and there, you can see that the first introduction of the series/season issue into American and British English differences occurred as a result of a similar debate to this one taking place here. That first version contains a Red Dwarf reference, and it is contemporary with this earlier debate; clearly somebody left here and, unable to back up their position that "season" is US specific, decided to add some "evidence" to that page.  Now the debate is back there's some "evidence" available to render that argument legitimate.  It's ridiculous.  As pointed out by somebody else below, it is telling that this edit was disguised as an "undo" action when in fact it was an original contribution:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_differences&diff=192879471&oldid=192801213  87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I always believed the use of season in America was because the viewing schedules were divided into seasons, which depend on when there is most likely to be people watching. Something the UK doesn't do, at least not in the same way. Series and season have varied and multiple definitions in each country, but as this is a UK show, we should use UK terms. Rehevkor ✉  15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And for clarification, the DVDs refer to it as series, as does the BBC . Rehevkor ✉  16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That official BBC link refers to it as "series" right from the start of the article, in fact there in not one instance of the word "season" in it. magnius (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was clearly a typo, you replied before I corrected it. Rehevkor ✉  17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * lol..no worries, it's easy to get confused when discussing articles magnius (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The official Red Dwarf Programme Guides used the word "seasons" (eg see the front cover for one edition here: http://tvmegasite.net/images/primetime/media/reddwarfprogrammeguidebook.jpg). I don't think anyone can argue that there is a conclusive preference for the UK - people just use both terms interchangeably. 92.40.151.76 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll quote what Rehevkor said above: "And for clarification, the DVDs refer to it as series, as does the BBC ". As for conclusive pereference in the UK: you may use the two interchangeably, the vast majority do not. Talk Islander 21:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but why are DVD covers a more authoritative source on the matter than book covers? Stating that my use of terminology is not reflective of that adopted by "the vast majority" isn't objective in the slightest; I suggest that people in this country use the terms "series" and "season" interchangeably; where is the evidence that this is not the case?  Indeed, the BBC themselves use the word "season" when they list collections of stories broadcast together within the classic series of Doctor Who (eg:  ).  And I didn't start this topic, so don't understand why is this an issue, anyway.  92.40.151.76 (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you think this is an OFFICIAL program guide? I do have it myself, though an old edition, and while Grant Naylor do refer to it as "the continuity guide" and it's a very good book, I don't remember it being official in any sense. It's not published by BBC, it's published by Virgin Books, it's not written by the writers and I am fairly certain it states that it's unofficial inside... but don't quote me on the last one. The DVD IS on the other hand official, as is the BBC site.
 * Whilst I have found people in UK are using Season more, this is mostly due to the influx of american programmes we're watching, but British programs are still often created in a short series of 6 or 8. We have WP:ENGVAR for this very reason... It seems WP:ENGVAR isn't the guideline I was thinking of. I know I read it somewhere! --  WORM MЯOW 08:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, American and British English differences does confirm that there is a difference between the countries. I think that we have enough reliable sources to confirm that we should be using series. --  WORM MЯOW 09:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is conclusive at all, but I don't care enough to argue this through. I checked the history of that "American and British English differences" page and the very first appearance of the series/season matter was disguised as an "undo" action when it was no such thing:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_differences&diff=192879471&oldid=192801213.  It's a matter of choosing the sources that you accept as factual, and nothing I offer to refute the dominating viewpoint here will change anything.  92.40.45.98 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion and thought I would comment. From my understanding, 'season' is an American term and is never (or at least I've never heard it) used for British shows. British shows seem to always be referred to as 'series', whereas I hear 'season' being used more often when US shows are being advertised. I also very rarely hear the term 'season' being used by anyone, even when referring to American shows. Just my two pennies worth. Zestos (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. Here's an example of the BBC using the word "season" whilst referring to a British show:  .  "Series" means Doctor Who as a whole; this is made up of several "seasons" which in turn comprise a number of "stories" each.  This is the BBC, and a British programme.  92.40.154.139 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bad example, as it's a very old show, and used a different episode format back then (7 serials, 40+ episodes per "season"), different from even the American version. You'll notice that the modern version of Dr Who uses series, since the serial nature was abandoned in favour of an episodic format, a similar format to that of Red Dwarf, and the same format almost every show used in the modern era. Rehevkor ✉  23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The modern era" being when, please? 92.40.84.160 (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He probably means sometime between the mid-nineteenth century and around 1940. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "modern era" refers to the reboot of Doctor Who, starting with the ninth doctor in 2005. At which point, the episodic feel changed from the long serials to the episodes we know today, and it became known as series again --  WORM MЯOW 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to note that 92.40.84.160 appears to be an SPA - now I'm not making any accusations, but can all involved parties please read and be aware of WP:SOCK and WP:SPA. Cheers, Talk Islander 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not accusing me. I use a USB modem from my mobile company, which seems to assign me a new IP address every time I connect with it.  To whoever banned me from editing:  I think that was unfair.  I did not "vandalise".  I have been consistently reasonable in this debate and in all other discussions.  92.40.84.214 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Language evolves. Some people in the UK now insist on saying things like "I couldn't care more" when they actually mean "I couldn't care less" because of America's influence on our language.  This is a change that makes no sense; the former means the exact opposite of the latter, and yet people embrace it (or at least accept it unquestioningly), which makes people like us seem fascistic whenever we try to correct them.  They say "language evolves, like it or lump it".  By contrast, the use of "season" for episodes recorded and broadcast as one "batch" allows us to differentiate these from the entire run of a programme (the television series Red Dwarf).  I really don't get people being so uppity about this when the notion of a US/UK boundary is fluid.  How long will this be kept up while language is evolving?  87.84.248.99 (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. But are you wanting to use the word "season" AND the word "series"?  Or to replace all instances of the word "series" with the word "season"?  If you just want to have "season" included for the purpose you describe I don't see the problem.  92.40.165.26 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wanting us to use "season" as well, not instead, of "series". They mean different things, and I only object to people insisting that we should keep our vocabulary down for contrived and inadequately explained reasons.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Since all official sources, ie BBC site and DVD covers state "series", is there really a need to debate this ad infinitum? Surely we should follow the official sources. -- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. I've not seen enough conclusive evidence to support "season". Rehevkor ✉  23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded, BBC uses 'series' for RD, so no reason to use anything else. magnius (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. British TV very rarely uses the word "season". The only instance I know of (other than imported American shows) is the BBC's retroactive use of the term for the original run of Doctor Who, possibly to distinguish it from the new version, for which the word "series" is used, as per norm.  Mi re ma re  01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifthed, as per all my reasons above. Talk Islander 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Seems conclusive.  92.40.67.200 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doug Naylor uses "season" in all his interviews, and in the new specials the guy in the sci fi store refers to how particular objects were used in particular "seasons". And yet for reasons best known to themselves, the powers-that-be here have banned use of the word "season" from the Red Dwarf article, even though it would reduce needless repetition within single sentences and paragraphs to do so. Absolutely hilarious. Oh well, I'm not going to bang my head against this particular wall any longer, suit yourselves. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doug Naylor could use the word "fish" if he wanted but that doesn't mean we should do the same. ;) Hmm... there are no shadowy "powers-that-be". Decisions are reached by consensus of all editors who care to get involved, including yourself, and the reasons behind the conclusion - far from being "best known" to anyone in particular - were discussed above for all to see. The bottom line is that "series" is the UK (and BBC) term for this and practically all other UK productions, and you're going to need a pretty compelling argument to switch away from UK English in an article on a UK subject. See WP:ENGVAR for the guideline on use of national varieties of English. Cheers,  Mi re ma re  18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The conclusion reached is nonsense, based on selective decisions on what is appropriate evidence and what isn't. Doug Naylor's voice doesn't suit what you consider to be the correct side of the argument so you are ignoring it, and that's all that has happened.  Check the discussion and you will see that this is not about trying to switch away from using the word "series" (which also is not a matter of switching away from UK English BTW) but about using the word "season" occasionally in order to bring variety to an often repetitive article.  Honestly, this discussion is like pulling teeth.  80.47.159.84 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's amusing how the same discussion on "season" over "series" occurs every so often. We discussed this very same subject last year and a couple of years before that. In all instances, "series" remained in the article as per WP:ENGVAR. Nreive (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you really. Well maybe you ought to add something about series/seasons to WP:ENGVAR to prove your point, since there's nothing about it there at present (and never has been)? 92.40.65.221 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:ENGVAR: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation".  Mi re ma re  15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence that this is an "appropriate variety of English" issue? Where does it say "season" is only a term in US English? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that it isn't? You know as well as I do that expecting WP:ENGVAR to list every difference between every variety of English is ridiculous.  Mi re ma re  18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So why is this WP:ENGVAR being used as evidence, exactly? Everybody knows that there are variations of English between the US and UK, but nobody here is fighting to spell "colour" without the "u".  The question is why can't the word "season" be used in the instance of over-repetition of the word "series" in the article.  Where any single word occurs three times or more in one sentence it would ordinarily be acceptable to use an alternative if one can be found that fits the bill.  And people are feverishly insisting that "season" is a word that doesn't fit the bill - "it never ever ever should be used in a UK context!"  Why?  "Because there are variations between UK and US English as per WP:ENGVAR".  Yes, but you on a whim have decided that series and season are a part of this, when they are not.  It's ridiculous.  80.47.159.84 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The question is why can't the word "season" be used in the instance of over-repetition of the word "series" in the article" - because, in UK English, 'series' and 'season' do not mean the same thing. To use both, with the same meaning, would be like mixing two languages together in one article. Talk Islander 16:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting replacing the word "series" when it refers to the programme as a whole, or a random consecutive run of episodes. When one says (for example) "series five", or "the fifth series", though, the word "season" can be used, because this is how the word "season" is used.  This is not a UK or US English matter, except in the minds of people who have seen patterns that aren't there.  Problem:  the word "series" has many meanings and it appears several times in some sentences, making the article clunky.  Sensible solution:  use a substitute word in some instances to relieve some of that repetition.  If you won't use "season", please suggest an adequate alternative.  80.47.131.174 (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it most amusing that the above poster takes it so seriously. Rehevkor ✉  10:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of us, however, think the article should be taken seriously, even though it's a comedy article. Maybe you shouldn't involve yourself in discussions when you think the subject is basically a joke?  80.47.131.174 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see where those who think that we should use "season" are from and where those who think that we should use "series" are from. I'm from the UK and I think that series should be used. Series is the most common British term used for our television programmes. This is a British show, and therefore the British term should be used. Zestos (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on the usage of "season" in the UK (where I am from). I don't think it's strictly true that this is a US term that isn't correct in a dynamic language. This term has been used for Doctor Who for decades - I happen to have a 1981 edition of the Programme Guide (published by Target Books, the semi-ancestor of Virgin books who published the Dwarf guide mention above, but both books are fully licensed and written with co-operation from the respective production offices) to hand and it uses the term throughout. Who historians who've seen a lot of production paperwork have said that the term is used interchangably with "series" (in this context) in internal documents going right back to when the show began in 1963.
 * Now there's probably been non-fiction written about Doctor Who than almost any television show, and in turn this has had an effect on the terminology used for episode guides for other shows, particularly science-fiction ones, both because of people copying the format from a Who book but also when the guides are written by people who are also Who fans (e.g. Howarth & Lyons, the authors of the Dwarf Programme Guide). So the term is certainly used here. In a language that has no formal regulation, at what point does a term stop being "incorrect" and become a valid recognised alternative?
 * (I should also add that the BBC and other companies frankly don't care about precision on terminology or other debated matters anywhere near as much as fans do. So to be honest the usage of a term on a BBC website reflects the usage of the people who wrote it and edited it and almost never constitutes an "assertion of Papal infallibility" that is meant to be the definitive answer. Unfortunately the charged nature of many fan and Wiki debates is such that any corporate usage often gets declared as "official-usage-therefore-we-win-the-end" by one side of the argument. And it never settles a thing.) Timrollpickering (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Doctor Who using "season" is addressed above. You should note the modern version of Doctor Who uses "series". Rehevkor  ✉  00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an example of the selective evidence used here. Doug Naylor uses "season" in his Red Dwarf interviews and so do his characters in the latest episodes, but he might as well use the word "fish" because his perspective doesn't matter in the slightest; however Doctor Who using "series" for the new episodes becomes adequate evidence that we should never use the word "season" in this article under any circumstance.  80.47.159.84 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely to distinguish between the two. The usage for the classic series is certainly not for the retroactive reasons claimed above, and the term has spread beyond there. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, citation needed that they used series to distinguish between the old and new versions? Rehevkor ✉  00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think that it is very difficult to compare the Old Doctor Who to anything. They had so many ways of classifying their episodes, by doctor, by time period (season), by serial (groups of episodes), by story ark, there just wasn't a place for the word "series". Note this is very different to the use of the word season today, which I understand to mean groups of about 22-24 episodes shown over a half year period, with a mid season break in the middle. It's an american concept, BBC programs don't follow it, their series are only about 6-8 episodes long. CAVEAT, that's just my opinion.-- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 07:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I should also add that the BBC and other companies frankly don't care about precision on terminology or other debated matters anywhere near as much as fans do." - while that's almost certainly true of companies other than the BBC, the BBC themselves work very differently, and I would certainly argue that they are very careful about the terminology they use. Talk Islander 11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding old Dr Who, I think it was Barry Letts who said that they didn't produce the programme as seasons or series, but as a continuing stream of serials -- there was a gap of only about a month between what are now known as seasons 1 and 2 for example. Just look at the fluctuating number of episodes in the early "seasons", as well as the progressive serial production codes (rather than grouping episiodes into series like more modern shows such as Red Dwarf or new Dr Who). When exactly the word "season" became widely applied to old Dr Who I don't know, but it was certainly retrospective for a lot if not most of it, and is definitely not the norm for UK TV in any case.  Mi re ma re  18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread stale, so archiving
I'm going to be bold here and close this discussion. It really isn't constructive, and we're just going around in circles. Those 'pro-season' (interestingly mostly IPs - why?) clearly aren't going to change their stance, and neither are those 'anti-season'. This discussion has stalled, and is advancing nowhere. If anyone strongly feels that this dispute should continue, please start a request for comment. Note that I am not closing this discussion because I want a particular result - please feel free to start a proper WP:RFC - but no one can disagree that we're getting nowhere with this. This discussion has been ongoing for three months now, and it has not advanced at all - there is no point in continuing. Talk Islander 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah right. I'd personally call it an active thread, rather than a stale one. But we've not reached a consensus and if we're not allowed to continue the debate I suggest that the word "season" be used where an alternative is required for "series". The problem of over-repetition has been stated, and the reasons for keeping "season" out AT ALL COSTS have been contrived. Important questions and appeals for relevant information have been ignored, and the people here who pick and choose what is "correct terminology" do so whilst ignoring valid evidence from our side. So I say use "season" if that means improving the currently clunky article. If anyone reverts just point to this comment. There are also issues of past and present tense slippage in the "Back to Earth" section but that's a matter to be addressed elsewhere, can't wait for that discussion *bangs head on wall*. 80.47.131.174 (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.167.242 (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.1.85 (talk)

Series 10
Back to Earth is being called Series 10 in the programme offically, I wonder if this should count as Back to Earth being series 10 and not 9? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.107.246 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is stated that "Back to Earth" is set after series 10. But that still does not mean that this is series 11 either. magnius (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well, they had to go and complicate things eh? XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.107.246 (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, there has only been 8 series of Red Dwarf, seires 9 and 10 are fictional within the Dwarf universe. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to Earth is neither series 9, 10 or 11. It is a stand alone TV special--nothing more. As is, after watching it, I'm almost inclined to says it's not canonical to the Red Dwarf series. Much the same way I wouldn't consider the "Can't Smeg, Won't Smeg" as an episode of the series.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The creators consider it canon, thus so must we. Talk Islander 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, officially, it is canon. Though from a purely personal stand point, I like to think of it as having never happened (much the same way I see movie sequels such as Terminator 3 and Alien 3 as never having happened). ;) Canon or not, Back to Earth it is still not series 9 or 10.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Being officially canon has nothing to with it being a series 9 or 10. It falls after series 10, canonically, regardless of whether series 9 and 10 actually exist.  If you're going to pretend something never happened, it should surely be series 8, anyway.  92.40.144.128 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's make it simple, it isn't part of ANY series. :) It's just a stand alone special. The only way that will change is if several more episodes are produced that are directly connected with Back to Earth.--Apple2gs (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Franchise
Red Dwarf exists in the form of a BBC TV series, a Dave mini-series, books and a comic series. Those alone are enough to justify it being considered a franchise. Add the existence of merchandise, audio books and other such materials and you have a undeniable franchise. magnius (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But this article is about the TV series specifically? If you change the nature of the article logically it'd require rewriting from a franchise perspective. Rehevkor ✉  12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
There seems to be a dispute between two users about the Patrick Stewart trivia in this article - regardless of my opinion I'd like both editors to stop undoing each other and discuss the matter here before doing anything else. Thanks. Tom walker (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it an edit war - but yeah, the YouTube link has indeterminable copyright as far as I can see, anyone could have uploaded it from anywhere, so it can't be used as a source anyway. That, and it is trivia, possibly with undue weight issues (a whole section for one actor's opinion?). Rehevkor ✉  19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To an avid and true Red Dwarf fan, the information is of great interest; especially since Patrick Stewart was involved with the show's cast as of late ... and whose name is mentioned within the Red Dwarf wiki page as well. If you have an issue with the YouTube clip, remove it. Yet, the interview took place and was aired on public television so, in my opinion, that content should remain in this page. As for the separate section, an appropriate section did not exist previously. Westchaser (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact it's a YouTube clip with unknown origin forbids its use in any way. Regardless of it's usefulness. End of. Rehevkor ✉  01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Patrick Stewart said these things on one of the Red Dwarf Night programmes, so it should be put into that section if it's really needed, though it's a little excessive to give one man's opinion such weight. Deserves no more than a "Notable fans include Stephen Hawking, Terry Pratchett, Patrick Stewart, etc." line somewhere in the article IMO.  Mi re ma re  02:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I recon a small, two-line note in the Red Dwarf Night section would be appropriate. The broadcast and subsequent inclusion on the series VII VHS and DVD releases are sources. A whole section is excessive, but it's interesting enough to enough people include as a passing mention. Tom walker (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Can the word Season occasionally be used in place of the word Series?
There has been much discussion above in the section Use of Season about whether a group of episodes should be called a Season or a Series. The discussion has gone stale, and fresh eyes would be appreciated.-- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 08:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - as request starter. I personally believe the status quo of series is correct, but have started this as an IP was having trouble doing it, and the issue has been raised multiple times on this page. Specific to Red Dwarf, every DVD cover states 'Series', the BBC site and the official website also state 'Series'. There is an argument between whether or nor series or season should be used in general for British TV programmes, a point I believe is moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) 08:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: even as a (North) American, I still think it is quite clear that "series" should be used over "season" in this article, since it concerns a British program. There should be no confusion here, per the "Strong national ties to a topic" section at MOS' WP:ENGVAR. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no evidence within wikipedia itself that "series" and "seasons" are UK and US specific terms; links in this debate were always to non-specific pages concerned with regional differences in language, and never specifically stated that "season" should be banned from a UK article. Once this debate took hold, somebody against use of the word "season" inserted something to back up his argument, but I don't think this should stand as evidence.  As far as I am concerned, the entire UK/US issue is perceived by a number of people within their own circumstances, but it is not adequately supported by evidence suitable for an encyclopedia. 92.40.88.108 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't ignore this. People are missing the point completely.  The issue is really, when we use the word "series" many times within a paragraph (because the term means more things), and it comes across as sloppy, is it okay to use the word "season" once or twice to add variety?  The anti-Season argument is more about preventing use of the word "season" for this purpose, whilst simultaneously offering no valid alternative.  All we need is a single valid alternative if the word "season" is out of bounds.  Please ensure that this is taken into the debate, because it has been presented above, as usual, as though people are trying to replace the word "series" with "season" wholesale, which nobody is.  81.158.236.156 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, because season is not a word generally used in the UK. Etron81 has the best idea, occasional substitution with the word "show" or "programme" would be better. magnius (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is used regularly in the UK, and language is not static in this way. The discussion above clearly shows that we can't just accept the "American usage" argument.  92.40.148.11 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's a "season" of Peep Show and a "season" of Blackadder to everyone I know and we're all English.  We're speaking a language that has evolved through centuries of influence and we use many many words with different origins all blended together.  Good luck getting this through the thick-skulls governing this place though.  You'd think we were trying to get a skyscraper built in the heart of Cambridge.  Wait - is "skyscraper" an American word???  Maybe!  Shudder!  Somebody put me right please!!  77.44.32.248 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Series. Every video and DVD release ever has used the word "series" and the BBC use the word series on various websites. The only person who has ever used the word season is Doug Naylor in an interview, but that's hardly a reason to change over 20 years of the use of a word. Changing this page would have a knock on effect to every article about a British television show, so it's not really a matter for the people editing this page, but rather a wiki wide decision that would need to see a clear policy change. magnius (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Satisfactory evidence required that: 1) we're dealing with something that has remained static for 20 years (I presume you're arbitrarily picking up from the point when classic Doctor Who ended, which in the UK was comfortably referred to as "seasons" through its history:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/index_third.shtml),  2) we should be using this "20 year" cut-off point rather than, say, a 40 or 50 year one, and  3) this RFC is asking to "change over 20 years of the use of a word", rather than to simply include another complementary word on occasion when it seems appropriate to do so.  Also, Doug Naylor was mentioned earlier because he represents as much a relevant source for Red Dwarf as the DVD covers and BBC website - he is not "the only person who has ever used the word season" in the UK ever, and you know this. 92.40.88.108 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment and suggestion in most places where "series" is used, it is referring to the individual series, rather than the programme as a whole - to avoid confusion in the few areas in which is is used to refer to both, might it not be a good idea to use "show" or "programme" to refer to the series as a whole? Etron81 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Series. Terminology should reflect the sources, in this case DVD covers and the BBC site. If the sources used the word "season" then it would be fair enough to use that term. As "season" and "series" are not strictly interchangeable terms, it cannot be justified to do so for prose style or text clarity reasons.—Ash (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Doug Naylor (co-creator and writer of Red Dwarf) consistently using the word "season" in all the DVD documentaries not count as "source"?  If so, why?  While the packaging and website don't use the word "season", this does not indicate that they are against it.  92.40.30.253 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See the comment from magnius in this RFC.—Ash (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not negate the point. For one, it's not "one interview" - it is every single interview with him on every official DVD released.  Again this is perfectly valid information being deflected "because you said so" - the usual way that the status quo is maintained.  Why do you assume that because the BBC website haven't used the word "season" so far that they are actually against its use?  92.40.128.20 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made no such assumption.—Ash (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we agree that the "source" are not explicitly against using the term, then we shouldn't be banning it. 92.40.68.68 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Anon IP) Please refer to Why create an account. You appear to be the same editor using shifting IP addresses. There is no way for other editors to tell. Consequently it is not sensible to have a connected discussion as this would be subject to confusion and potential misuse; particularly in the case of a RFC. At the moment it appears that all anonymous IP contributions to this RFC have been from the same editor.—Ash (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are at least two of us now; I will register with an account as soon as I can and mark this comment and others as mine. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)For the record, the RfC I started was regarding whether to proper term for a group of Red Dwarf episodes made in the same production period should be Series or Season, as this was the basis of the above disagreement. This has since been changed by IP 81.158.236.156, to query whether we can use the word Season to avoid repition. Whilst I would have prefered this to be brought up earlier, there is still benefit for community attention on the point, and the US/UK difference may no longer be moot. Having said that, I agree with Etron81. I'd probably expand upon that to say that in situations where we are referring to a specific series (Series IV or the fourth series), we should use the word series. When referring to the "complete series", or the show as a whole, we should use the word "show". 81.*, do you have any other situations where this would not be acceptable? -- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, it was raised as the predominant issue many times in the main (now locked) discussion/debate that led to this RfC. It's been mainly the anti-Season people who have been taking this as "let's just replace the word series with the word season," and arguing their position in response to that.  Thanks for setting the RfC up, by the way.  87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. Whether you intend to use "season" to replace all instances of "series", or just some of them, the reasons for not doing so are the same.  Mi re ma re  17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break one

 * Series. Even when 'season' used to avoid repetition, it is not clear that a 'season' is the same thing as a 'series'. Find another way round the repetition problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Series - series is the accepted British English term for what, in American English, is described as a season. This is the standard across television articles throughout Wikipedia, and there is no reason to adopt a different attitude for this article. Regarding the repartition issue, there are other ways around that. It is peculiar, and noteworthy, that the only (vocal) dissidents to this line of thought here are anon. editors. Talk Islander 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editors probably realise that this is a lost cause, and are just putting across their points for the sake of it - you'll get your way because you'll look at all the evidence and just keep things the way you want, because you're like that! 77.44.32.248 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, excuse my ignorance, then, but if the anon editors think this is a lost cause, and are "just putting their point across", why aren't there any registered users (of which there are currently around 10 million, of which at least 50,000 can be said to be active) who take on this point of view as well? Talk Islander 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. And why aren't at least 25,000 people stating here that they agree with you?  It's a mystery.  77.44.32.248 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, you've still failed to answer my question ;). All dissidents to the 'avoid using season' argument, in this RfC at least, are anon editors. Why? Talk Islander 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I know the answer to why "all dissidents" are a certain way? I am an anonymous editor because I visited this talk page and saw this conversation and I'm not registered but decided to contribute anyway.  Call me smart for realising you're the sort of person who'll dismiss my contributions (on the basis that you don't agree with them) whether I'm registered or not.  77.44.32.248 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I assure you that's not true. That aside, it is rare for anon IPs to contribute to the 'inner workings' of Wikipedia, thus is remains highly odd that everyone in this argument arguing for the use of the word 'season' is an anon IP. Talk Islander 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both - I don't follow this argument that the word "season" should be banned just because the word "series" exists. Use many words to refer to the same thing - don't be scared!  The people who think this is a UK "trousers" v US "pants" issue are wrong, frankly.  What's more this issue will keep recurring, and RFCs will keep being started, year after year, until both words are in use; eventually it'll be obvious to even the most conservative editors policing this article that the word "season", as synonymous with "series", is not limited to the barriers of the US.  77.44.32.248 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is a comparison between "trousers" and "pants" wrong then? An American and a Brit will understand both of these words, but you would only expect to see one of them used in an article written in either US or UK English. Just as with series/season, using both in the same article to mean the same thing is unecessary and potentially confusing. Also, I think you might be rather overestimating the support for "season", considering. I'm sure you can see Islander's point when he remarks that nobody in favour of "season" so far is a registered user. Indeed, only one of the IPs in this section has even edited Wikipedia apart from this page, and even he's at a public library. Not to mention that it wasn't even one of those users that started this RfC. And it's interesting to note that the solution to possible repetition pointed out by User:Etron81 and User:Worm_That_Turned has been completely ignored by the IPs, presumably because it doesn't involve the word "season"... Given all that, your suggestion of attritional RfC-starting seems unlikely and would only serve to further weaken what little credibility the "season" argument has.  Mi re ma re  22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "And it's interesting to note that the solution to possible repetition pointed out by User:Etron81 and User:Worm_That_Turned has been completely ignored by the IPs, presumably because it doesn't involve the word "season"." It deals with repetition of the word "series" as long as that usage concerns its meaning "programme" or "show".  We cannot use the word "programme" or "show" in instances of repetition when the word "series" is being used as per the meaning of "season".  This is the problem that arises when a word has multiple meanings; the given solution partly works, but not entirely.  In the meantime, we have yet to receive a reason to not use the word "season" beyond the contestable insistence that it is a US-centric word.  Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't use "program" or "show" as a synonym of "series", which is why those words should be used for the show as a whole and "series" left for the individual series. If there is then over-repetition of any term then the article simply needs to be written better rather than resort to importing words from a different regional varity of English.  Mi re ma re  13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "program". I said "programme" - I am not trying to Americanise this article or any other article.  92.40.75.56 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The spelling of programme/program isn't the point I'm making, but the use of the word.  Mi re ma re  17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a poorly written article ought to be rewritten, yes. But your argument that to use "season" is a "resort to importing words from a different regional variety of English" is what I argue is wrong, and what requires evidence beyond a few DVD covers and the rule that contrary evidence doesn't count.  The question I keep asking is what do you consider the historical cut-off for allowing words to stay in our language.  Why this 20 year limit mentioned above?  And if we even go so far as to accept this, where is the evidence that language has stayed static during these two decades?  Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're using language as it is used, not defining it.  Mi re ma re  19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that language is a certain way, and comments like "The only person who has ever used the word season is Doug Naylor in an interview, but that's hardly a reason to change over 20 years of the use of a word" have been used to support this usage. Why are we only going back 20 years and who says that the use of these relevant terms have remained unchanged within this 20 year period?  Latter Day Fare (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably "20 years" was just shorthand for "a long time", I don't know. The reasons for the different terms are apparently explained in the Television season article, boiling down to the fact that US shows generally have many more episodes per season than UK shows have in a series, resulting in them taking an entire season of the year to broadcast, whereas the UK one would not.  Mi re ma re  22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we were to start using the word "pants" in this way we would have to explain each time that it was not referring to "underpants" but to "trousers" (because in the UK it would be an anomaly to use the word "pants" to mean "trousers"), whereas "season" here carries an identical meaning to one way that we use "series", more like the "truck/lorry" example given below. If "truck" is also banned from UK wikipedia articles then that is ridiculous too, frankly.  Never before have I heard of keeping terminology down within an encyclopedia, in any circumstances.  92.40.112.162 (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, I said that people in the UK are quite capable of understanding that "pants" can mean "trousers", but wouldn't use the word to mean that themselves. The same is evidently true of TV shows made in the UK, which use "series".  Mi re ma re  13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "evidently true", but your opinion, based on the sources that you have picked to support your argument. There is absolutely nothing to justify banning the use of a perfectly valid word for an indeterminate length of time, simply because in your opinion our language isn't there yet.  92.40.75.56 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidently true to anyone who cares to look. See reply further down.  Mi re ma re  17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible to see patterns and evidence of any kind if you attend to specific phenomena a certain way - it does not make them more "evident" or "frequent" phenomena, other than to the eye of the beholder. You can see faces in furniture if you "care to look", as you call it.  Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * series, per WP:ENGVAR which calls for consistency within articles. —Jeremy (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation." This does not concern individual words and this should not be extrapolated as such.  i.e. it does not imply "we cannot use "truck" because it is inconsistent with a rule to always use "lorry"." Latter Day Fare (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break two

 * Series per WP:ENGVAR. Although it is true that (especially nowadays) the word "season" is used in the UK, it is in origin an Americanism (the Doctor Who Programme Guide mentioned above was by Jean-Marc Lofficier, a French journalist based in the US).  British users understand the word "truck" and may even use it sometimes, but that doesn't mean that we should use it interchangeably with "lorry" in UK-based articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really would like to know where we are supposed to draw the line as far as commonly used words in our language are concerned, given that it has changed over centuries (in ways that we unquestioningly accept within wikipedia) and remains fluid today. And as pointed out above, how long will it be before words like "season"/"truck" are so obviously part of our language that they can be adopted within an encyclopedia?  A century from now will it be okay to use the word "truck" interchangeably with "lorry"?  If so what will have caused this?  An RfC that concludes against the use of a term (essentially banning it for an indeterminate duration) is untenable indeed, in my view.  Latter Day Fare (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "season" had usage in the UK before that Programme Guide and what few have noted is that it is the very word used in Red Dwarf: Back To Earth. It is a hypercorrection to regard "season" as just a US term. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This same observation was mentioned earlier in this discussion, but it was ignored on the basis that DVD covers and the BBC website are to be treated as "source" for the "correct" terminology, while DVD contents are an anomaly to be disregarded. Latter Day Fare (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That "season" began being applied to the original series of Dr Who at some point, and that Doug Naylor likes to use it, are very minor exceptions (especially Naylor) and don't represent the situation at large.  Mi re ma re  13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence required that these are "very minor exceptions" and don't represent "the situation at large". They are evidence to support the opposing viewpoint, and some could argue that it's because they don't support your argument (not "the situation at large") that you are keen to throw them out wholesale.  Naylor was chosen due to his relevance to this particular subject, and is not a lone example in this respect.  92.40.75.56 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly a reliable source I know, but I can confirm that, as a Brit, I was not even aware that 'season' could be used to refer to a TV 'series', as you will see from my post above. It is quite hard to find reliable sources that state that a particular word is not used in a particular way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing remotely British in all of this is the insatiable urge of a few people to ban something they don't like. And I speak as a Brit myself.  Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really require evidence that "season" and "series" are US and UK terms respectively, then simply go down to your local branch of HMV and browse the DVD section. Or for something a little quicker, here's the list of DVD's currently listed on Amazon's main page for TV DVDs and the term each one uses: House (US), season. Scrubs (US), season. Chuck (US), season. 30 Rock (US), season. The Royle Family (UK), series. Lewis (UK), series. The Wire (US), season. Torchwood (UK), series. That's just the main section - look down the Bestsellers or Future Releases lists at the side, and you will see the pattern repeated. In fact search on the site for any TV programme, including, of course, Red Dwarf.  Mi re ma re  17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence that a word is used in certain selected examples of your choice does not simultaneously demonstrate that these "sources" are against using another word that means the same thing. Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not selected examples, they are the current crop of the front page of Amazon's TV DVD section, and nothing to do with me. I also challenged you to look up any that you might care to. This is a clear case of different usage in different national varieties of English, and that's what WP:ENGVAR is for. It requires consistent use of one variety within an article, therefore "series" is the correct term here.  Mi re ma re  19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So far WP:ENGVAR has been used to emphasise the importance of consistency of grammar within articles, which is not relevant. Could you link to the correct portion of that page please?  Latter Day Fare (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From ENGVAR: "This avoids articles being written in a variety that is inappropriate for the great majority of its readers. For example, Australians should not stumble over Americanisms in Australian Defence Force; Americans should not find exclusively British terms in American Civil War." The Oxford English Dictionary only lists this sense of season as part of its June 2007 draft additions. They state: "Broadcasting (chiefly N. Amer.). A single series of a television or radio programme." As a chiefly N. American term it should not be used in an article about a chiefly British subject.—Jeremy (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The OED reference was the kind of information on your side that I was looking for.  Can the expressions "exclusively American terms" and "chiefly N. American" use be conflated as you suggest?  I am not sure.  And it would be good to have some consensus as to whether the OED definition places the word "season" within what wikipedia rules would call an "Americanism".  Latter Day Fare (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "selected examples" bit concerns the fact that you have determined that only DVD covers are relevant sources of information for this study (not their contents), and that certain aspects of the BBC website are to be used as source, excluding the classic Doctor Who section which uses "season". As observed by Timrollpickering in the discussion that preceded this RfC, "the usage of a term on a BBC website reflects the usage of the people who wrote it and edited it and almost never constitutes an "assertion of Papal infallibility" that is meant to be the definitive answer. Unfortunately the charged nature of many fan and Wiki debates is such that any corporate usage often gets declared as "official-usage-therefore-we-win-the-end" by one side of the argument."  It's true, isn't it?  Latter Day Fare (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DVD covers are just an example - I'm not citing corporate usage as a reason to exclude "season", but in this case corporate usage and common usage happen to coincide.  Mi re ma re  22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally do not agree with the classic Doctor Who section being used as decent example. Due to the sheer numbers of episodes, the fact that serials can run over many episodes, they can be grouped by age, by doctor, by serial, by companion, by enemy and everything and anything else in between, it's not surprising that confusion can occur. User:Miremare's point regarding amazon titles is a valid one, the dvd covers are what the programmes call themselves and I think you'll find it difficult to discover a British set of episodes which labels itself season.
 * I think the discussion has moved on now, but nevertheless I don't think that "confusion" can be accepted as the reason for the word "season" being historically used for classic Doctor Who. Latter Day Fare (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point made above regarding N. American TV scheduling is also a good one. Sets of episodes are in groups of 22-26, and there are specific things that happen in the mid season breaks. British sets of episodes are groups of 6-8, sometimes they are on twice a year, in both spring and autumn. I don't deny that the word season has come into British lexicon, at least anecdotally in my experience, it's regarding American television shows.
 * Having said all that, the word series occurs 178 times in the article (including sources or well over 100 without). I don't think that adding the word Season in over and over again instead is going to help this problem. I suggest someone who has some time takes the word series out when referring to the programme as a whole. That'd be a start. We then need to look at re-writing the other parts of the article to reduce this excessive number to a less excessive one. -- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW  12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ship name
Is it worth mentioning that the name Red Dwarf as written on the ship appears in both English and Esperanto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears in both languages where? Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In close ups of the ship as it passes the camera, the name is shown in English and Esperanto. Furthermore, within the series, Esperanto is referred to in passing on rare occassions.  However, does the name being Esperanto warrent a mention in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No because the name "Red Dwarf" does not appear on the outside of the ship in both languages. Latter Day Fare (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never seen "Red Dwarf" written on the ship in anything other than English. magnius (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The signs on the interior walls of the ship are in two languages - the infamous "Level / Nivelo" labels. I have never seen esperanto the ship's exterior. ADDENDUM: I've watched the originals on VHS, so it's possible that it's part of the CGI in the "special editions." Xsmasher (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be easy to solve. If someone can provide a reference for where "ruĝa nana" or "ruĝa nano" appears by giving a series number, an episode number and approximate minute and second position then it will be verifiable by just viewing the DVD playback. Note: My googlefoo lead me to this Esperanto-English converter, I hope the translation to "ruĝa nana" or "ruĝa nano" is correct. HumphreyW (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no moment in any Red Dwarf episode when the ship's name suddenly appears in anything other than English on the outside of the ship. End of discussion.  Latter Day Fare (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"and gained a cult following"
Is this about suggesting the show has worth? Why is this qualifier here? Andrew Ellard (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove it. 79.74.199.148 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a sourced fact, keep it. magnius (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What, somebody on a blog, review or article said the words "the show has fans" and it's therefore a sourced fact? Absurd.  This is an example of biased people pushing an agenda.  79.74.199.148 (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or rather, if you look at the source, you'll see it's the BBC Press Office, a reliable source. And also a cult following doesn't just mean "fans", it means a group of fans highly dedicated to the area... All seems reasonable to me -- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To somebody who is not pushing a biased agenda, it is arbitrary and has only been added to "toot" the show's value. You could also use it as "source" for saying that Red Dwarf was 'one of the most consistently requested series for release on DVD', if you wanted.  And many other things.  But what would be the value of doing this?  What does such "tooting" bring to an article of this nature?  79.74.199.148 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * whats wrong with just saying something is good in this way?never been a prob before. 92.40.104.97 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "whats wrong with just saying something is good in this way?" Because this is an encyclopedia and not a fan forum.  As somebody above says, you could use the same source to say that Red Dwarf was the most consistently requested series for release on DVD.  It's not an appropriately unbiased source; the "cult following" point is neither necessary, nor adequately sourced as it is.  Remove it or back it up properly (I'd argue for the former as it's obviously a fan who wants to keep it there.  And we know that Red Dwarf fandom is often without perspective!).  Trailerthroat (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tro'st grun'ting?
Is this considered canon? Trailerthroat (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Article needs shortening
The article needs shortening; its current length is the result of wiki writers self indulgently showing off what they know (like peacocks!). I say we should aim to take it right down to 25% of its current length.

As a guide, check out these other articles:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_and_Gromit - Just as popular as Red Dwarf if not more so. Links to full articles on each of the films etc, but does not expand upon them in the main article itself.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_of_delights - Manages to list the differences between book and television adaptations and yet remains minimal in length.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Bonzo - short and sweet article, contains all that is necessary and nothing more. Not saying we should get this short, but it's a brevity to aim for.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundercats - Far more episodes produced, but resists the urge to indulge in providing every last detail about each one!

Could we start by removing completely the following sections from the Red Dwarf article (I know you like them but it's like tidying a room - chuck out the stuff you don't really need. Or at least stick the information in a stub article):


 * 4 Themes
 * 5 Hallmarks
 * 6 Reception and achievements
 * 6.1 Mixed reactions
 * 6.2 Achievements
 * 7.3 Magazine
 * 7.6 Roleplaying game
 * 7.7 Red Dwarf Night

I think this will achieve a lot. From here we'd be able to cut back the remaining sections to something more manageable. Let me know what you think!

SaveBoggins (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's no objection I'll go ahead and make the edit next week. SaveBoggins (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection from me. The article is too long and that seems like a good way to begin to deal with it.  Go ahead.  Isingaol Cokwasowt (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What would be the benefit of this? I didn't know a lot of what's in this article until I read it here, and I'm sure the same is true for many others. Mass-deletion is not a good way to share knowledge. Trimming the article is all good, it is a little lengthy, but make sure all of the interesting and/or important information is in another article. Tom walker (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The information from those sections can be relocated to stub articles, that's fine. But note how the Red Dwarf article contains more information about the programme's characters, for example, than the "stub" that is allocated for that purpose.  The stub is the place for that expansion of information.  I still think that the sections above should be removed from the article entirely and relocated to stubs, with maybe a line of summary for each in the process of linking to that stub.  SaveBoggins (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay good. Looks like we have a consensus - I'll go ahead and add the stub articles, and shorten this article when I have more time during the Christmas hols.  SaveBoggins (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally agree this article is too long, but since it's a much more important article than the crufty sub articles, I worried about them first (then I got busy in the real world, and have ignored everything wiki for a few months). If you fancy clearing it out, I wouldn't object! -- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 13:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm against removing whole sections. What good would that do?  I believe the Themes, hallmarks and reception sections are vital parts to any wikipedia article.  The article passed its GA review with these in place.  By all means, the magazine roleplaying game and Red Dwarf night could be removed and merged with other sections, but the information should not be lost. Nreive (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is beyond repair anyway, or at least not fixable without a huge amount of time, and a number of people who will appreciate the unpaid effort! I say leave it, purely for the sake of your own sanity.  Trailerthroat (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a bit harsh. I admit that the article could do with trimming here and there, but it's by no means "beyond repair".  A little bit of time and someone could have this tightened up quite nicely. Nreive (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Theme "tun"
I read something somewhere a couple of years ago about the Red Dwarf theme tune being based on the melodic structure of one from another children's show. I thought I'd find it in the wiki article but no luck, and a google search hasn't led anywhere useful yet. Can anybody help me get to the bottom of this? Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the opening or closing theme? If there's anything in it, I'm sure it'll be mentioned on the documentary about the theme/s on the series V or VI (or thereabouts) DVD. I'll take a look if I can find the thing.  Mi re ma re  16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay... The documentary I was thinking of was "Howard Goodall: Settling the Score", on the Series VI DVD. He doesn't mention basing either theme on one from another show. Not absolute proof, but I'm sure he would have mentioned it had it been the case.  Mi re ma re  21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The opening theme. The original one for the first two series, not the "rock" variant that was to take its place.  It was initially built upon the melodic structure of the theme for another show, to the extent that you can play the music pieces side by side and they almost match up, but not fully.  It was something I read in the early 90s - I wish I could remember where.  Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing Thread
Kochanski DID apear in the back to earth specials, it says otherwise in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.64.176 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the desire to close the thread above .I've never seen anything about a time limit and indeed I've seen threads go on much longer without resolution either way. Garda40 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out that anyone is free to open a request for comment to help resolve the debate, but so far no-one seems to want too. Any pro-season supporters are welcome to do this. Personally I am happy to see the word "series" used exclusively as all DVD's and video releases have used "series" since the very beginning, so I do not see the need to suddenly Americanise things now. Here in the UK we have used "series" to describe a run of episodes for almost all television show's originating from the UK, in fact I cannot (off the top of my head) think of anything that has ever been described as a "season". magnius (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the US and anyway what's above doesn't answer the question of why close the thread .Garda40 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I've seen threads go on much longer without resolution either way" - that's a very poor argument to use - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which essentially the same thing. Just because you've seen other arguments go on for months without resolution one way or another does not mean that this one should - indeed, all it shows is that those other debates were possibly left running too long. This discussion is worse - neither side is relenting their position, and worse, one (possibly the main) contributor who is 'pro-season' is claiming that the arguments presented by the other side are invalid, which is clearly not true of any of the points put across by those involved, both 'pro-' and 'anti-season'. Take a look at WP:STICK  as well - there really is no benefit to be had whatsoever in beating this one further, as neither side will relent - the only way forward is dispute resolution, and WP:RFC is a good place to start. Talk Islander  19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's the first time I've seen WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in regards to a talk page discussion and as that page indicates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is  meant to be used in regards to articles and policy discussions.
 * I've also seen plenty of threads left open and a WP:RFC also in place .Garda40 (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-read my comment carefully - "See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which essentially the same thing". I.e. it's the same argument, which it is, and which is true throughout life in general. Saying "Well, but X can't be a bad idea, because look, y happened in the past, and that's similar" is a very poor argument, which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS relates to articles and polices etc., but which is equally relatable to this incident. Fairly obvious. Anyway, I'll leave the IPs edit intact, simply 'cause it's not worth edit-warring over, but I maintain - it's highly suspicious that a) by far most 'season' supporters have been anon. editors, b) (s)he is so intent on having the last word, and c) (s)he is so adverse to letting this debate rest. Talk Islander 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that Fairly obvious since nobody thought of mentioning it as covering this situation on the talk page of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS either.
 *  highly suspicious  I'm confused as to what is highly suspicious about IP editors talking on the talk page of an article even if every IP editor is the same person since the IP editors are not constantly editing the article itself  to change the wording in question .Garda40 (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Islander has a good point, the discussion HAS been going on for a while, and neither group has started to agree with the other. Also, there is a lot of repetition, and so basically the discussion has gone stale. This does mean leaving things at the status quo for the time being, but it's fairly easy to start a request for comment, get some fresh eyes in, see what the community thoughts are. Since this is quite such a contentious issue, and could possibily have repurcussions across other tv programs, I will start the RFC myself tomorrow, if no one beats me to it.-- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a bit of time; if nobody replies just go ahead and use the word "season" as you see fit. The article needs fixing in various places and no other alternative to "series" has ever been given.  81.149.61.241 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of continuing discussion about the term "season" does not mean that consensus has suddenly changed.  Mi re ma re  01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're awaiting the results of this RFC, because in fact consensus was never reached. I think that's what the above comments are referring to. 87.194.221.68 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been an RFC. And a fairly clear consensus was indeed reached -- the majority of editors being in favour of sticking with "series", for the reasons stated in the above discussion. A couple of IPs disagreeing doesn't mean there isn't consensus... you can't please everyone.  Mi re ma re  22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud. 87.194.221.68 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to start one if you feel you must. WP:RFC tells you how.  Mi re ma re  20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could that be any more complicated to learn for people who aren't the most computer savvy? Best way to keep the status quo I guess.  81.158.236.156 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry all - due to my pesky real life, I've hardly had any time to use wikipedia at all, let alone start an RFC (8 contributions in the past 2 months!). As said above, anyone can start one, no need to wait for me. -- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW 08:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics and script
Is anything stopping us put bits of script or lyrics from Red Dwarf in the article if we so desire? Spartown rangewar beezlecnut (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but it'd be better if someone on the admin team could summarise the relevant wikipedia rules for you before you edit the article. Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that won't happen, because the admins of wikipedia think it's your duty to read every tome they've read before you make a single edit. SaveBoggins (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The admins should help with this kind of thing, that's the point of them. Do they think we're supposed to read all that stuff?  They are admins because they want to "live" wikipedia; the rest of us actually have our own lives to live!  Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most admins of wikipedia see their duty as one of reverting vandalism and blocking people, a job description that matches the diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder. I really don't think you're going to get much in the way of "help" from them.  SaveBoggins (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to finish a PhD and can't be bothered with all that nonsense. For me it's very straightforward - I'll correct wikipedia as I see fit, and if somebody from admin thinks I've broken the rules they can explain the rules.  I don't have time to sit down and read however many pages there are of arbitrary rules.  Spartown rangewar beezlecnut, just add lyrics or whatever; nobody is ever going to read this article anyway.  Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Something about Red Dwarf fans would be good
I think it would be good to give a bit of information on the kind of audience Red Dwarf is aimed at, and the kind of reputation Red Dwarf fans have. Latter Day Fare (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It would need to be reliably sourced. How about [] as a source? This would produce an accurate description of "criminal mad boffin" as the kind of audience notable for enjoying Red Dwarf.—Ash (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL. Have to say, something like that wouldn't be unlike picking the BBC Press Office as a reliable source for saying how popular and brilliant Red Dwarf is!  Need evidence for Red Dwarf being a "scatalogical science-fiction TV series"?  It's there!  :-D   Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fucking hilarious and 100% correct! Thanks for the best comment that I've ever seen on wikipedia!  SaveBoggins (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody has added the "scatalogical" reference, and since it's been reverted I've had a go at putting it back in. It's reliably sourced, after all.  SaveBoggins (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as intelligence is concerned, probably a lot could be said about those fans who require a laughter track in order to perceive humour, and people who think series 8 is of value. I've read a Red Dwarf forum where somebody who likes series 8 (I'm not joking that this person exists) was insisting elsewhere that "I couldn't care less" could and should mean the exact same thing as "I couldn't care more". Evolution of language he called it (rather than, you know, retardation). Anyway, some factors to take into account if we're doing a section on fans of Red Dwarf. Trailerthroat (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think it's "I couldn't care less"/"I could care less" which he claims is justifiable because other people do it.  I've never heard "I couldn't care more", but you could be talking about someone else I guess.  In any case it's more a case of being stubborn, I think, rather than purely idiotic.  Rather than correcting himself so that he's using language the way it should be used, he forms a flimsy argument to justify what are basically errors.  I doubt very much that there's a direct correlation between doing that and liking series 8 of Red Dwarf though.  Other than the fact that both "groups" would be tending to block out evidence in order to retain an untenable position.  SaveBoggins (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "because other people do it", but "because Americans do it". Americans are always right, and any changes that they have ever made to language have always been improvements, which we ought to be promptly adopting.  I haven't ever been to America myself (I have been to America) so I don't understand (do understand) exactly what he isn't (is) talking about, and that he isn't (is) correct!  We must always do what Americans do if we want to keep evolving!  We must follow this sensible person's trajectory with regards to language, and bend the rules of wikipedia around it!  Trailerthroat (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - I agree that needing a laughter track is pretty annoying, especially when the loudness of those fans, if heard by GNP, might actually cause a return of whooping audiences and gurning performances, after the progress made by the more nuanced and cinematic BTE. But again I don't know what could be said about this in the article, because not all fans of the show are like this - just the loudest and stupidest ones.  SaveBoggins (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but there's a big difference between series 8 and earlier series with a live audience. Series 8 has a totally different performance style; the actors are playing up to a crowd that's now whooping because they're so pleased to have the opportunity to be seeing Red Dwarf.  It's a quality that doesn't carry well onto the television screen, and stands up even less well over time.  Unfortunately I think now that there is a generation of younger people for whom that IS "classic Dwarf".  For me it's a distraction, but for them it's the correct aesthetic for the programme; it's what they want to hear an audience doing when they watch it on TV, and they want to see the actors chumping about, lapping up their responses.  I would much rather Red Dwarf have the confidence to grow up and leave these people behind.  It would be better from a science fiction perspective for the comedy to progress with the emotional maturity shown in the specials, rather than just bring in the kind of live audience who want the programme to be all about capturing their sycophantic appreciation, whether it's in the laughter track or in the way the actors respond to them.   Harvey Manfrensengen (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough comedy has surely come in since the late nineties to make the trigger of a laughter track unnecessary? During the late eighties and early nineties Red Dwarf felt interesting and subversive.  For it to go with a laughter track now would be admitting an irritating alignment with mainstream, easy comedies like Two Pints of Lager and Some Packets of Piss.  Anyway, good luck to the BBC that they will choose the correct route in the end... Trailerthroat (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Between 2003 and 2008, a number of Red Dwarf fans discovered food. Why is this fact not detailed in this article (or the food article, for that matter)? Simon Perkins (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is this for it: http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2467/garbargepailkidsaspx.jpg  Simon Perkins (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Smart :-D Harvey Manfrensengen (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've located this, a cross-section of Red Dwarf fans as intended for a DVD extra. For some reason the BBC picked a generic fat guy to present it, but I'm not saying anything! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EyOGt-L9k Simon Perkins (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He says the square seemed crowded, even though there were only a couple of hundred people there. Is it possible that fatness maybe had something to do with that?  Harvey Manfrensengen (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that fatness would have been involved. Simon Perkins (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kids' Show?
There's no mention whatsoever in the article of Red Dwarf being a kids' show. I'd say this was pretty crucial, even worth putting in the first paragraph. James Ireton (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that your own personal opinion? Red Dwarf was always show in a post-Watershed timeslot which suggests that it was never intended to be a kids show, nor was it ever marketed as such. magnius (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was always the impression I had, but maybe it was just the way I perceived it at school. I have to say I'd forgotten / didn't know it was shown post-watershed. Some of the later episodes were very wacky though, as if intended for younger viewers. James Ireton (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already had this conversation, starting with exactly the same initial post. Somebody deleted it, and we all told the initial poster what Magnius just did. What exactly is going on? Tom walker (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I returned and found my question was deleted, presumably because I wasn't signed in when I asked it. Since I didn't have an answer I wanted to ask again, as it seemed important to the article.  The discussion ended fully with my comment of acknowledgment above; unless you want us to discuss this further your contribution has come a bit late.  James Ireton (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I asked, if you're not signed in it just shows as an IP, doesn't get deleted. Several people did answer before it got deleted, myself included, they all got deleted too. All suggests somebody was trying to stop you asking. Also, you're not supposed to be rude to other posters, discussions never "end fully" on Wikipedia just because someone says so. Tom walker (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning to be rude. I'm just aware that admins get annoyed if discussions go on for too long.  James Ireton (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sitcom AND comedy drama
I'm stating this point here, so that a discussion can exist rather than an edit war. I've altered this twice now and two people seem to be insisting that Red Dwarf doesn't exist within the genre of comedy drama. The opening sentence of the article is now as follows:

Red Dwarf  is  a  British situation  comedy  franchise,  primarily  comprising  eight  series  of  a  television  sitcom  / comedy drama that  ran  on  BBC  Two  between  1988  and  1999  and  gained  a  cult  following.

If "comedy drama" is removed from the sentence, then another edit needs to be made, as the sentence needlessly duplicates the information about it being a sitcom (the term "situation comedy" redirects to "sitcom"). But I am arguing that with series 7 and BTE, the genre of the television version is not as fixed anymore, and it is appropriate to call it both a sitcom and a comedy drama. The franchise covers everything, including books, calendars and audio books. The television aspect of the franchise is both sitcom and comedy drama, depending on what you're looking at. What's the problem? Trailerthroat (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some reliable sources for the "comedy drama" claim if possible. Thanks,  Mi re ma re  19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not keep this to the one discussion rather than wrestle control of it? I'm not suggesting that "comedy drama" be used instead of "sitcom" so you've misunderstood.  Please let me know what wikipedia means by a "reliable source".  This is on the first page of a google search:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7962093.stm.  Trailerthroat (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't my intention to try to wrest control of the topic, and if you look at the talk page's history you'll see that I added this section at exactly the same time as you added yours, 19:40, though there was apparently no edit conflict. Anyway regarding sources, I'd consider the BBC a reliable source if they were officially or editorially referring to Red Dwarf as a comedy drama, but in this case they're just quoting Craig Charles giving his own view on it.  Mi re ma re  00:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, he is talking about the "Back to Earth" specials, not Red Dwarf as a whole. One mini-series does not change the genre of 8 previous series. magnius (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Craig Charles also calls series 7 a "comedy drama" on that DVD's documentary, and I'm trying to find a legitimate editorial that expresses the same opinion.  It's not like Red Dwarf has regularly haunted the mainstream news in the years between series 8 and BTE, and the internet was in its infancy before then so forgive me for finding this more difficult than it should be.  Blogs and forums are full of this opinion, so this hasn't come out of nowhere.  Also Magnius, I am not trying to "change the genre of 8 previous series" in this article, which is why I'm cross with Miremare's title for the discussion we're now having.  I refer you to my comments in the discussion I started before this one; I'm simply wanting "comedy drama" to be accepted as complementing the established "sitcom" genre for the show.  Also, my suggested change helps to tidy up otherwise clunky opening sentence - see the above discussion again.  Trailerthroat (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I have with referring to the programme as a comedy drama is that the term is almost exclusively used in an exaggerated way to describe a series that might be more story-driven (and perhaps, subjectively, less funny) than previous series were. But, there's nothing to say that sitcoms can't be be story-driven without mutating into comedy dramas. I don't think many would argue that Red Dwarf's primary purpose isn't to be funny, and I don't think much of its ratings would ever have been generated by its drama content. There's no doubt in my mind that the first eight series sit firmly inside sitcom territory, and that of course is what they were intended to be. Given that, there's a problem with describing a series as a "sitcom/comedy drama", when only Back to Earth (two episodes out of 55) even approaches qualifying as comedy drama.  Mi re ma re  17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that comedy dramas are subjectively less funny than sitcoms, at all. Is this where your objection lies?  And if you consider series 7 to be a comedy drama (as a number of people do), that makes 11 episodes out of 55.  Trailerthroat (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that a sitcom will be quantitatively more funny than a comedy drama in that it's the purpose of a sitcom to be constantly funny, which is not true of comedy dramas, being at least as focused on actual drama as comedy. Which is the reason that nothing from series 1-8 can qualify as comedy drama because it wasn't written or produced in that way, but as a sitcom.  Mi re ma re  00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_drama#Aspects_of_comedy-dramas_on_TV Nothing about comedy dramas being quantitatively less funny than sitcoms, especially in the half-hour format.  As I've said, let's wait until the next full series of Red Dwarf has shown itself before we revisit this topic.  Trailerthroat (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Official website calls it a sit-com, surely that's enough? magnius (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's enough if you want to keep the article the way it is. Will you remove the duplication of "situation comedy"... "sitcom" in the opening line?  I'm beginning to feel that the onus has been put on me to sort this out, just because I suggested one way to improve it.  Trailerthroat (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it doesn't make sense. The "franchise" didn't run on BBC Two, because the franchise isn't limited to the television series. Trailerthroat (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made the better fix. A new series is in the works and if it too follows a "comedy drama" format then I think we should consider this tendency at some later point in the article.  Even if it's not a "tendency" the stylistic difference shouldn't be ignored.  Trailerthroat (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha - so now you're accepting that there have been eight series between 1988 and 1999 "thus far"? I'm looking forward to seeing more series being made between those years, definitely. I can't be bothered to improve this article any more, with all the effort required to get edits through the committee, but you can't say I didn't try. Every now and then the broken logic of the people you're arguing with hits you in the face, and you realise it's just not worth the effort. Trailerthroat (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken out "thus far". SaveBoggins (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC funding of science fiction. New Red Dwarf = Reduced Doctor Who?
Should this be mentioned in the article?

1988-1989 - Doctor Who phased out, Red Dwarf phased in

1996 - Doctor Who film, no Red Dwarf

1997 - Red Dwarf back, Doctor Who series doesn't happen

1999 - Red Dwarf axed

2005 - Doctor Who returns

2009 - Red Dwarf comes back for a one-off special, Doctor Who suddenly gets a shortened series of 5 one-hour specials

Now that Doctor Who is going to be great again because of Steven Moffat and Matt Smith, let's all say NO to new Red Dwarf. It has no right to eat away at the BBC budget for science fiction! Simon Perkins (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of both. Personally wouldn't like to see more Red Dwarf though as I fear it would taint the show; like many people I wasn't thrilled with the special. Though I'm interested to see how it goes.

I was under the belief that the reason for the one-hour specials was David Tennant's wish to return to stage acting. Besides, Doctor Who has resumed with a full series and will be going on for the forseeable future. And the movie, whilst involving the BBC I believe was primarily an American venture.

Regardless, the new Red Dwarf, if rumours are true will be funded by UKTV, a commercial subsidiary of BBC, Doctor Who is produced by BBC Wales. They essentially broadcast on different networks, I doubt one will affect the other. Even when Red Dwarf was a BBC production, it was BBC2 and after the watershed. Doctor Who (at least the 2005+ seasons) is BBC 1, before.

Your comment is nothing but FUD imo. 88.107.175.204 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌: see WP:OR.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 09:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only is that fantastically original research, it also doesn't account for the fact that BTE was a Dave production. Furthermore, Who's reduction in 2009 was partly down to David Tennant's commitments to Hamlet and other things. And don't forget that Day of the Triffids and Hyperdrive have both been done alongside new Dr. Who, as was Blake's 7 alongside the old back in 1977-1981. Tom walker (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that Doctor Who is funny though, there's arguably no need for new Red Dwarf. Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite satisfying to see Doctor Who being funnier than Red Dwarf is now, which took the piss out of Who for so many years. Doctor Who is now funnier than Red Dwarf will ever be again - quite something isn't it.  Mark Gatiss, Simon Nye and Steven Moffat have probably never even heard of Red Dwarf!  Simon Perkins (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuity Issues
I was surprised to find there's no mention of continuity issues. Anyone who has seen more than a few episodes will be aware that there are frequent conflicts. Typically in a sci-fi show (including demi-comedic ones such as Firefly and Farscape - though, granted they aren't sitcoms) the show's background universe comes under great scrutiny and examination. In the Red Dwarf tv series continuity is often discarded for convenience to the plot and people accept the discrepancies. This is quite a unique characteristic of the show in my opinion and possibly worth documenting. 88.107.175.204 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find the episode with Kryten saying he has to get the smeghammer out to weaken mr listers underpants. 86.177.136.137 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics for the Closing Theme-Song in the Ending Credits
at the end of every episode is a song (source = http://www.ladyofthecake.com/reddwarf/html/theme_song.html)

I think it should be added to the Main Article --Fresh Start (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Trailerthroat (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be copyright violation and quickly removed, so don't waste your time. magnius (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't permission be sought? There are some pictures included in the article that either violate copyright or have been given permission.  Trailerthroat (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trailerthroat but have a question of the legalities of having copyrighted materials on any page on the wikipedia website - if it is on this page, then why not the other...what is the difference. And if someone adds it, it is always available and accessible in the history pages (archived basically) --Fresh Start (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that the Red Dwarf page is policed more rigorously (and, arguably, arbitrarily), but the reason for that I don't know. Trailerthroat (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I remove my comment (or atleast just the section with the lyrics in it). With copyrights, what about quotes and acknowledgement --Fresh Start (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * they aren't even the full lyrics apparently (though they are for atleast the first four seasons - I'm watching them back-to-back)
 * --Fresh Start (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "full version" as written never appears in an episode. They are additional lyrics that were either never recorded or never made their way onto the screen.  Trailerthroat (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless conversation. If the song lyrics are added, they WILL be removed and the editor responsible will get a warning for copyright violation. You can in some circumstances quote small sections of the lyrics but you would need a good reason, and I cannot think of any reason why the theme tune to a television show would need quoting. See WP:LYRICS magnius (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, right! ;-)  Spartown rangewar beezlecnut (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With substantial enthusiasm, the admin he doth say "no". Trailerthroat (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, I just read the rules and guidelines. magnius (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading the rules and guidelines - they're quite boring and it's good to have someone who doesn't mind knowing the rules, even if they aren't willing to see to what extent they can be bent or broken! Spartown rangewar beezlecnut (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I *am* an admin and there is zero chance of the lyrics going in. That would be a straight forward WP:COPYVIO with no "fair use" defence. So I'm afraid we're not going to "bend or break" any policies in this respect. Pedro : Chat  21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah 'kay, thanks for that Pedro, phew. The world was spinning off its axis for a minute there.  Spartown rangewar beezlecnut (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also a rule about eating with elbows on the table that a few more people could do with respecting to be honest. Sebastian Toothbury Trous&#39; (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How does one go about getting an image in an article?
Hi, I would like to put the following image into wikipedia, then paste it into the Red Dwarf article. How do I go about doing this, please? Also, are there any particular rules or legislations concerning which images may or may not be used in an article (eg copyright restrictions)? Image here: http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2467/garbargepailkidsaspx.jpg  Regards Simon Perkins (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't use that image, so don't waste your time. magnius (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * very good image. 79.77.184.61 (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If anybody is able to link to information showing how to put images into wikipedia it'd be appreciated. Also, I'd like to know what the specific rules and legislations are that mean certain images may or may not be used in an article (eg copyright restrictions). Thanks in advance. Simon Perkins (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:IMAGE and WP:FAIRUSE. Images must be pertinent to the subject and of encyclopedic value, so the one linked above is unlikely. If you have an axe to grind about Red Dwarf fans, or anyone else, this isn't the place. Uncyclopedia may be quite a lot less funny than Wikipedia in most places, but you might like to give that a look anyway.  Mi re ma re  20:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Simon Perkins (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Filmicate"?
Is that a neologism or something made up as a novel application of spelling/grammar? Zero google-hits. I challenge the use of this word, and therefore you need a WP:RS to verify that it is proper to use here. Without that, if you don't like "filmise", we'll have to use "filmize". That latter is definitely a valid term--filmizing, even having its own wikipedia page, so if you can't find proof an alternate form exists, we have to use a real one. BBC's own white-paper on this technique uses the "z" spelling. Googling finds dozens of uses of "filmise", even specifically in relation to Red Dwarf. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with DMacks here. --John (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it again, there's no such word. It's simply another instance of yet another editor with edits only to this page (see most of the red-linked users on this talk page) being silly. If they're not all the same person I'd be amazed.  Mi re ma re  20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a neologism to say that dozens of internet sources use the term "filmise" in relation to Red Dwarf, when they will have gained that word from this very article. The BBC using the term "filmize" is not sufficient reason to adopt an American term:  "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (neologism)  To support use of the term "filmize" please demonstrate that it is not an Americanism; to support use of the term "filmise" please demonstrate that it is a real word beyond its usage on random internet sites.  Thanks.  Lost in Allegro (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BBC uses the term "filmize" in their formal description of the technique. BBC is British, and is one of the teams behind Red Dwarf. Therefore, we should use that spelling in this article. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please link to the correct page on that BBC white-paper (see my comment below). Lost in Allegro (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree again with DMacks. The whole -ize / -ise thing is a red herring anyway; -ize endings are perfectly acceptable in British English with only a few exceptions, although they do tend to be less common than -ise. An article written on a British topic could quite happily use either. --John (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The .pdf file that DMacks links to, via that white-paper page, is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP053.pdf  Within that, I get zero results for filmize with a "z". I get one result for filmised with an "s", but it is in inverted commas as though the people writing the article perceive it to be a made up word. See the very top of page 15, where it says 'The "filmised" MTF curve much more closely resembles that of film.' I feel that I am not reading the same article as DMacks, which he says uses the "z" spelling. If I am looking at the correct article, then I argue that it is not an example of a source that is "about the term or concept" of "filmising", but rather uses that term only once and in a non-committal manner. It does not in itself prove that "filmize" or "filmise" should be utilised in this article, which is supposed to be part of a formal encyclopedia, and not unknowingly adopt slang or made-up words. If there really is no adequate term for this process (one that we might find in the OED), then I suggest we summarise the process in this article in one sentence, or say something like "the process known as 'filmising'". That might get around the problem. Lost in Allegro (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, what the heck was I reading? Yup, BBC does use the "s" form there, and I can't find my browser-cache what I had looked at previously. Therefore, your concern about anything other than that spelling is irrelevant, and you've just succeeded in wasting everyone's time. Reliable sources are the mandate of this encyclopedia; not "formal terms" if there is no verifiable use of them in this context. If there is no good one, we can't make one up. But if there is a verifiably used one, we use it even if editors say "feh, that's a silly word". DMacks (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or indeed, "feh, that's a made up word, but let's just use it anyway", which is clearly the line we're going to take. Lost in Allegro (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Demonstrated use in a reliable source makes it not "just a made-up/neologism word". That's how things work here...we find reliable sources and use what they say. DMacks (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (neologism) The BBC white-paper you linked to is not about "filmising" - it is about the process of achieving a film look.  Later in the white-paper it either invents the term "filmising" or uses that invented term, but this doesn't suddenly mean we can employ it as though it is a real word.  Its status as invented is illustrated in that white-paper by the inverted commas.  What's wrong with my solution - that we refer in the Red Dwarf article to 'a process known as "filmising"'?  That way we are accepting the fragility of the term rather than using it as if it isn't made up?  Lost in Allegro (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't actually object to that, though DMacks' solution would be cleaner. Did you see my point above about -ise and -ize? It seems to refute your misconception about the issue and you didn't respond. --John (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about whether we are spelling it -ise or -ize, but that the term is not presented in DMacks' chosen source as a real word. It only appears once (odd considering the 15 pages are entirely about "the film look"), and it is in inverted commas in a manner that suggests it is made up.  Wikipedia guidelines tell us that we cannot cherry-pick terminology for articles like that.  My solution is to recognise this in the article, whereas DMacks' "solution" is not to bother - I don't see why this would make his version "cleaner".  I'm actually hoping for people to offer creative solutions in addition to mine - not just insistence that we keep the article as it is.  Lost in Allegro (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Back to Earth section
The Back to Earth section reads like a trickling of news reports as they came in. It needs to be fixed. Lost in Allegro (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and trimmed back. magnius (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Should this be put in the article?
Hello. Do you think we should put this in the article? Simon Perkins (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What? magnius (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All the people who auditioned
Maybe we could have a list of all the people who auditioned for Red Dwarf the television series. Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There already is a casting section for this. magnius (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * David Baddiel auditioned for Lister. Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a relible source for that? If so it can be added. magnius (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * David Baddiel talking about it on Robert Llewellyn's Car Pool. Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

do it - nobody's complaining 86.163.93.220 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They will be if it's not properly sourced. magnius (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes? I feel like I have gone back in time.  David Baddiel talks about auditioning for the role of Lister in Robert Llewellyn's Car Pool.  Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to put it in or not? I don't want to help you with your article if you are poised to remove my work because it isn't good enough. I'd rather know now. Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People respond here within fifteen minutes when they have a chance to be negative, but not to be helpful. Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have sources, sure. But this might be borderline trivia. Is it really notable to list everyone who auditions for a show? Do you have some type of background info, for example why he wan't chosen etc.? That might make it a bit more notable. Just pointless lists of everyone who auditions doesn't seem all that interesting to a reader.  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A section on fandom?
What about having a section on Red Dwarf fandom? After all, Back to Earth wouldn't have come into being without the heavy grinding of the Dwarf community. 92.40.215.4 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Weehoobazoona (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost in Space
I added that it was similar to lost in space I think we should keep that in the article. Red Dwarf is just a remake of lost in space. For those of you who don't think so hear me out, Lost in space was about a spaceship that gets lost several million miles into deep space and can't get back to earth hence the title lost in space. This space is not only has big machines that can produce food from nothing but also has among its crew a self serving lying weasly cowardly little smeg head called dr smith. Smith always sells the other crew members down the river for whatever reason money power to save his own miserable neck smith is also responsible for the space ship being lost in space too. Another crew member is the Robot who is everything smith is not brave smart honourable. The Robot starts out as docile and Smiths slave until it breaks its programming and starts ripping on him  for being a small minded uptight cowardly weasel. Smith also rips on him for just being a robot and also makes fun of the shape of his head in like every episode. The whole show is about them trying to get back to earth which is what red dwarf was about for a while. Some of the episodes where similar to there was one where smith used an alien device to create an army of himslef who dress in old fashioned clothing and end up stabbing each other in the back. there is even one wher smith is on trial and the robot has to convince them that smith is mentally incomptent to get them off. I have no idea why rob and doug claim that blade runner inspired them it was so clealy lost inspace its nothing like blade runner  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.107.79 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that would be original research.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What he said. Rehevkor ✉  22:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What year the crew of Red Dwarf was killed
This article says that it takes place some time in the late 22nd century, but in Series 2, Episode 4, when they go back three weeks before the accident occured, a clock reads March 3, 2077. This would be the late 21st century. Are there other episodes which conflict with this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.2.229 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They kept on contradicting all kinds of things like that, so there is no definitive answer. :-)  81.179.230.101 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics
The show's lyrics are absent from the article for reasons I can't identify. Who's going to put them in then? :-) 81.179.230.101 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose? WikiuserNI (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To have the lyrics in the article. Looting Sodbury (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lyrics are likely copyrighted.. Rehevkor ✉  16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So must the pictures and logos be, but they are there. The problem can't be that big - he who dares wins.  Looting Sodbury (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See the previous discussion about this.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's inconclusive, and it's an archived discussion rather than a live one. Time has moved on, and I can't communicate with something that happened ages ago, so let's have the conversation now.  Looting Sodbury (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lyrics would be a useful addition, and it appears that nobody else is concerned either way, so I'll start typing them up, and I'll paste them in around the weekend of the 25th. Let me know if there's any reason why I shouldn't. Looting Sodbury (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Song lyrics are covered by copyright. Even articles about actual songs, unless in the public domain, don't have lyrics reproduced. We can quote parts of it if necessary.  Mi re ma re  15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you accept as "necessary"? Looting Sodbury (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the answer to your question can't be "no and forever no", don't expect a prompt reply from these guys. I think probably you just need to use quotation marks and give the copyright holder's name, as per usual scholarly practice.  One or two people are saying that you need to append what you add with some kind of statement of reason, but that hasn't applied to image use so it's probably nonsense. The impression I get is that there is a big sense of "ownership" attached to this article, so these people are probably just trying to slow your contributions down so the article remains "theirs".  Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The images are there to aid the user: the logo as identification, image of the ship in Setting and plot, image of the crew in Characters and actors, image of an parody episode in Themes, image of German book in Novels, image of magazine in Magazine, image of the U.S. crew in U.S. version, image of special in Red Dwarf Night. How do the Lyrics aid the user understand/visualize something? Where would you put them?  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, rather than make paranoid assumptions about what "these people" are trying to do, you could always look at the relevant guideline and see for yourself.  Mi re ma re  15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lyrics would be there to aid the user, providing them with the lyrics in a category called Lyrics. Why is this so contentious?  What is the actual reason for including other information, beyond the fact that to a few people, it's quite nice information to have?  Looting Sodbury (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aid the user how exactly? There is no point to the lyrics, no discussion about the content that the lyrics would aid the user in understanding the information when given the actual words. Does it aid in understanding the show, explaining how the show was made or received? There is no rational for inclusion, expect that you like it. That and it being copyrighted means that you some better arguments for inclusion.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in general isn't like a Steve Reich process that unfolds in its aiding of people towards its content. It simply contains things about Red Dwarf, and many of these things are arguably trivial and needless bits of information.  If other people are happy to improve a section about the show's lyrics and music, making it fit the "house rules", then why can't it be done?  Why would this section be worse than the rest?  You arbitrarily not liking something isn't fair justification for keeping it out, either.  Looting Sodbury (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like it, it's a copyright violation.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you want to be done when normal citation practices won't fit the bill? Don't just say "can't be done", please.  Looting Sodbury (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And whoosh... no reply. See what I mean?  It becomes your job to improve the article, and their job to slow you down.  Red Dwarf Rememberer (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I got quite bored repeating the same point, but I'll say it once more. The lyrics are copyrighted and there has been no valid reason given for that would require them to be in here to aid a point and to satisfy FUR for inclusion. Try improving the articles within the policies and guidelines and no-one will slow you down. And as already has been said, you can read up on the relevant guideline.
 * Both of you (if you're actually two people) have done nothing but talk on this talkpage, not a single "improvement" to any article, only wasting everyones time trying to get the pointless lyrics in the article for no good reason. (Well, Red Dwarf Rememberer performed some on this article as well as the talk page).   X  eworlebi (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeworlebi... I would be interested to see what checkuser would find about all the accounts that post on this page and nowhere else... if they're not all one person I'd be amazed. They even talk the same, especially when they're talking to each other about how people are stopping them doing what they want to do.  Mi re ma re  20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although they aren't actually editing, so I think a checkuser would get declined.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny how they've all stopped now isn't it? :) Also I'm pretty sure one or more of them got banned a while back so I think a checkuser would be granted if they were to return.  Mi re ma re  00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seemed pointless to keep asking the question once I understood better what Xeworlebi was actually saying. Thanks for assuming bad faith though :-(  Looting Sodbury (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at this rubbish version!
Somebody should add to the Red Dwarf article that the dead horse is being floggo: http://reddwarf.co.uk/news/2011/03/04/just-enough/  188.28.47.55 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Red Dwarf X?
The article used to cite the reference to "Red Dwarf X" does not mention the title "Red Dwarf X" in it at all. Did I miss something in the link, or did the person who added it just invented... especially considering that there was no Red Dwarf IX for the next series to be Red Dwarf X. I hope that's not the case, but I guess it would be a good idea to revise this? -- 71.141.99.157 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A search on the Red Dwarf's official site confirmed the new series' title as "Red Dwarf X"... so perhaps then the reference link should be revised? -- 71.141.99.157 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and do it? 86.135.75.159 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Could we use a more iconic photo of the Red Dwarf crew?
The Back to Earth photo of the Red Dwarf crew is up to date but there are far better pictures that could be used, from around series IV or V, that are more iconic and generally less shit. The actors are no longer in their prime, and it could be argued that the Back to Earth photo is unrepresentative of the programme as a whole. 86.148.86.92 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we need to shout a bit louder. HEY MAYBE YOU GUYS COULD GO BACK TO ONE OF THE DECENT, MORE ICONIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RED DWARF CREW, FROM SERIES 4 OR 5, RATHER THAN SIMPLY USING ONE THAT'S VERY RECENT AND ISN'T VERY GOOD? :-) Frank Beowulf (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing "discussions"
Two discussions starting "This article should mention the fact that series 8 was shit" and "Just a thought. This article doesn't really serve a purpose and it may be worthwhile to delete it." have absolutely no place here. They are a clear violation of WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM and are little more than trolling. These pages are for building an encyclopaedia only - there is now way these discussions can assist in that. Continuing to add them is disruptive editing. There. Discussed. Now we can get on with our lives. Rehevkor ✉  23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a clear pattern of IP vandalism in the form of bogus talk page comments, so I'd agree that removal is definitely warranted. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  05:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. 188.29.123.129 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. Rehevkor ✉  12:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At the very least we need to discuss why it's not appropriate for an article on Red Dwarf to objectively state that its eighth series was utter shite. 188.29.123.129 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A statement like that ("its eighth series was utter shite") cannot possibly be objective. HumphreyW (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Red dwarf back to earth screenshot.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * God knows how this survived so long.  Я ehevkor ✉  23:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we please swap the group photo for a more iconic one?
For most of this article's lifetime there was a far more iconic group photo of the Red Dwarf cast being used, and it was replaced with the current, less good one simply because Back to Earth is more recent. This will be a case of a wiki editor wanting to assert their ego or ability to do something, rather than doing what is best for the article. Will it be possible to please revert to the better, more iconic series 4-5 era photo as used before? Cannae Login (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. But nobody in charge cares.  Let them keep their rubbish version.  94.197.252.203 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is in charge.. if you feel the current photo is inappropriate, then fix it.  Я ehevkor ✉  10:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the filename of the image you prefer? There is nobody "in charge" here, just a lot of people would be happy to have a mature discussion about possible improvements and help resolve differences of opinion among various editors. Note that ad hominim attacks and commenting on their motives (rather than how your idea is an improvement) will only get you ignored and leave you frustrated. DMacks (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Despair squid and joy squid are alien aren't they?
The article argues that there are no aliens in Red Dwarf, but I think this comes from Lister being sceptical of aliens and coming across as more objective than Rimmer. The despair and joy squids are not of earth origin, unless I'm very much mistaken. 86.177.136.232 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The despair squid came about from terraforming/forced evolution by humans, I believe.  Я ehevkor ✉  14:15, 27 December

What is the definition of "alien". If I go to mars and make a creature is that creature an earthling? Frognsausage (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the creatures in Red Dwarf evolved naturally on other planets. All of them are life forms created by human activity, so not aliens in the strictest sense of being a native of another world. Tom walker (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Theme song trumpet - Mahler?
"> On the Mahler 5th front--you can't overlook that opening solo trumpet which can be so haunting. I have always thought that the opening to the "Red Dwarf" theme was an homage to Mahler 5."

"Gustav Mahler Symphony No. 1 in D ... Mahler is an expert in the art of recycling. Themes from this symphony are also heard in his Songs of a Wayfarer, and fans of the TV sci-fi series Red Dwarf will recognize the programme's title music if they listen to Mahler's 4th or 5th symphony."

Listening to Mahler, it seems obvious the RD theme trumpet is derivative - should this be mentioned in the article?-96.237.7.195 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source that states that that is the case.—Jeremy (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Red Dwarf → Red Dwarf (TV series) – Capitalization should pretty much never be the difference between two different article styles. As the dying star is clearly the primary topic here, this page should be moved. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment red meat Red Meat? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yes, there are many articles that are distinguished by capitalisation alone, and the naming conventions allow this. All that is needed is a hatnote at the top of each article, which we already have. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Capitalization is considered acceptable for disambiguation. The WP:TITLE policy even gives three examples: "MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey".--SGCM (talk)  20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; this is a case where I think the capitalization is sufficient disambiguation. Powers T 20:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – Added identifier makes sense, plenty of other TV series do this even when there is no duplicate article to confuse it with. Makes for quicker searching without having to worry about getting the wrong one.. not every country knows about the TV show, and not all non-astronomy minded readers will be aware of not requiring an upper-case "D". <font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat]''' 17:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does Red Dwarf run backwards through time?
The current' series runs from October 2012 - present apparently..... Today is 3rd September. So has it started or finished? "Present" can't be before the date it starts! Frognsausage (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Back To Earth isn't the tenth series
"Red Dwarf is a British comedy franchise which primarily comprises nine series (plus a tenth smaller series named Back To Earth"

Back To Earth was a mini series, the tenth series was made by Dave (partly owned by the BBC) and being broadcast now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.191.4 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Red Dwarf is a British comedy franchise which primarily comprises eight series (plus a ninth smaller series named Back To Earth)" isn't accurate either, though. Badblokebob (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As the amount of episodes in a series isn't a constant and we haven't established any length in the lead, saying "smaller series" makes no sense. "Red Dwarf is a British comedy franchise which primarily comprises ten series." Full stop, end of story, no need to make it more complicated than it is. Peteb16 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Template colours
Please see Template talk:Red Dwarf. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Probable error in introduction.
"a radio version produced for BBC Radio 7"

In fact I'm pretty sure that these were the same episodes that were aired on the World Service in the mid/late 1990's... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.99.190 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

British versus American Terminology
The show lasted 10 Series, what Americans call seasons. The whole life of a show, Americans call a series. But since the Brits call each season a series, when what do the Brits call the entire multi-year library of a show? Do they have a term? or do they just call it a show? Marc S., Dania Florida 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no british equivilant to what americans call a series. Duncan3dc (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Show" or "programme", confusingly most people just use "series".  Я ehevkor ✉  13:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who is Irish the current terminology in the article doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I have always called the whole life of a show, a series & the yearly batch of episodes a season. 95.45.113.179 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists Classic Doctor Who (1963-1989) as having seasons, while the new Doctor Who (2005-) as having series. Is this an error? Do the British use both terms? Should the Wikipedia entries for Classic Doctor Who be edited to series?2605:E000:AA1F:E400:C8F7:45BB:6203:F3B9 (talk)

Other Characters
Why is there no mention of many other characters, that often were in multiple episodes, and even multiple series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.177 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is. It's called List of Red Dwarf characters. Pasicles (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I also didn't realise this myself, and came to the article to try and find out what supposed role Ainsley Harriott played in the show, as I scoffed at the rumor he was in it, never having "seen" him in any episodes. I went straight for the "3 Characters and actors" section and didn't find anything there. Rather than trying to read the whole article, I jumped over to Harriott's own Wikipedia entry and found the entry I was looking for immediately under his article's "Television Work" section. I didn't initially notice or click the List of Red Dwarf characters link as I didn't even know what character he played, and assumed (wrongly) it would just hold profiles of the main characters.


 * If I struggled with that one query, I expect others have and will do too. I don't really know the best way to improve on the article to mitigate this issue... could I propose some sort of anchor section called "Guest Stars" or similar, or expansion on the "Characters and actors" section to incorporate a list of "known" guest actors / actresses? Or rename / make more prominent the link to the characters list / make it obvious it's also a list of all guest actors / actresses too?


 * And yes, I now realise I could have just done a page "find" and located his name that way on the article page.


 * Regards. James (UK) (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Back to Reality/twonk
Knowledgeable Dwarfers may wish to comment here. Ben  Mac  Dui  11:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Red Dwarf. 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 http://uktv.co.uk/dave/article/aid/630663

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Red Dwarf. 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 http://www.thereddwarfzone.co.uk/movie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408061055/http://www.sci-fi-london.com/news/article/1195080035/3/red-dwarf-the-bodysnatcher-collection to http://www.sci-fi-london.com/news/article/1195080035/3/red-dwarf-the-bodysnatcher-collection
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011201714/http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=121&title=red_dwarf_back_to_earth_this_weekend_s_e_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=121&title=red_dwarf_back_to_earth_this_weekend_s_e_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thereddwarfzone.co.uk/movie.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deep7.com/product.php?cat=reddwarf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/469

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Debate - Is Red Dwarf a franchise, or mainly a TV Show?
Here's a question for all to have a little debate upon. As this article states, Red Dwarf is defined as a sci-fi comedy franchise, but I want to raise the question as to why its referred to as a franchise. Surely, a franchise is a stand-alone thing from a TV show, right? So wouldn't this article be more attuned to the TV Show itself, and have a sub-section regarding the franchising it got - books, DVDs/videos, etc? I mean... Is there any article on a TV Show that refers to it as a franchise per se? GUtt01 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about a TV show specifically, but there are precedents: Judge Dredd and Harry Potter are both examples where the main character is also the name of the franchise and dealt with as such.  I think it just means extra work - as the current article would need to be split so that the TV show specifics were taken out into the article "red Dwarf" and the franchise (that is all the stuff that isn't on TV) would go to a new page Red Dwarf (franchise).  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, I happen to note that the US show, The Simpsons, is referred to as an animated sitcom on its main article, and the notable number of products and merchandising, such as comics and video games, are mentioned on this article, but that the show as a franchise, is incorporated as a separate page, entitled franchise. In that sense, while it maybe extra work, it makes sense to separate the two. You can't refer to this article as the franchise article, because it should be covering the TV show; another article must be created to cover the franchise that was spawned by this programme. GUtt01 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think any (succesful) TV show becomes a franchise with spin-off merch. Try and think of it the other way around with the question "Do you like Red Dwarf?" - "The TV show - yes!" (or no, if you're a smeg head). It just happens to have DVDs, book, t-shirts, based on the popularity of the show itself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)