Talk:Red Dwarf

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)

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)

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. _TalkIslander 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 :). _TalkIslander 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. -- WORMMЯOW  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#Television, 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!-- WORMMЯOW  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#Television 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 [1], as does the BBC [2]. 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 [3], as does the BBC [4]". As for conclusive pereference in the UK: you may use the two interchangeably, the vast majority do not. _TalkIslander 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: [5]). 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! -- WORMMЯOW  08:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, American and British English differences#Television 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. -- WORMMЯOW  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: [6]. "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 [7], 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 -- WORMMЯOW  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, _TalkIslander 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. -- WORMMЯOW  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. Miremare 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fifthed, as per all my reasons above. _TalkIslander 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems conclusive. 92.40.67.200 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 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)

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. _TalkIslander 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)

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. _TalkIslander 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. _TalkIslander 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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