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)

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)

Use of season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

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, Miremare 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". Miremare 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. Miremare 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. _TalkIslander 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.-- WORMMЯOW  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. _TalkIslander 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. Miremare 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. _TalkIslander 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. _TalkIslander 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)

Closing Thread

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. _TalkIslander 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. _TalkIslander 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.-- WORMMЯOW  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)

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. Miremare 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)