Jump to content

Talk:Red Dwarf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.40.40.214 (talk) at 19:46, 20 February 2009 (→‎Should it be pointed out...?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleRed Dwarf has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Is it just me or is the link to Smegoo! broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.238.102 (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appeared to be. I think it was a fan search engine built on in Orange space, and the person has since left Orange. Anyway, I've removed it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 T C 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks for that, but they should show it often. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's also been on fridges and so on for decades. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's right; I forgot that dogma trumps logic. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR is perfectly logical, otherwise it wouldn't be followed :). TalkIslander 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

'H A6 6 E R ?

Can someone tell me what all that was about? magnius (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS applies, but see User:Grawp. Long term page move vandal. All fixed now. Pedro :  Chat  00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Dwarf&oldid=272123679"