Talk:Red Dwarf

Template:LOCErequest

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 ;). _TalkIslander 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. _TalkIslander 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. _TalkIslander 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#Entertainment, 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. _TalkIslander 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#Entertainment 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)

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)

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?

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)

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.

1. last sentence of Themes section still appears largely unintelligible
2. "Cadmium II" has variable capitalisation, don't mind which, but should be consistent
3. 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)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak (talk) 16:40, 17 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)