Talk:Red Dwarf

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)

The lack of continuing discussion about the term "season" does not mean that consensus has suddenly changed. Miremare 01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We're awaiting the results of this RFC, because in fact consensus was never reached. I think that's what the above comments are referring to. 87.194.221.68 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been an RFC. And a fairly clear consensus was indeed reached -- the majority of editors being in favour of sticking with "series", for the reasons stated in the above discussion. A couple of IPs disagreeing doesn't mean there isn't consensus... you can't please everyone. Miremare 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud. 87.194.221.68 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to start one if you feel you must. WP:RFC tells you how. Miremare 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could that be any more complicated to learn for people who aren't the most computer savvy? Best way to keep the status quo I guess. 81.158.236.156 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all - due to my pesky real life, I've hardly had any time to use wikipedia at all, let alone start an RFC (8 contributions in the past 2 months!). As said above, anyone can start one, no need to wait for me. -- WORMMЯOW  08:15, 24 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)

RfC: Can the word Season occasionally be used in place of the word Series?

There has been much discussion above in the section Use of Season about whether a group of episodes should be called a Season or a Series. The discussion has gone stale, and fresh eyes would be appreciated.-- WORMMЯOW  08:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - as request starter. I personally believe the status quo of series is correct, but have started this as an IP was having trouble doing it, and the issue has been raised multiple times on this page. Specific to Red Dwarf, every DVD cover states 'Series', the BBC site and the official website also state 'Series'. There is an argument between whether or nor series or season should be used in general for British TV programmes, a point I believe is moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) 08:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment: even as a (North) American, I still think it is quite clear that "series" should be used over "season" in this article, since it concerns a British program. There should be no confusion here, per the "Strong national ties to a topic" section at MOS' WP:ENGVAR. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been no evidence within wikipedia itself that "series" and "seasons" are UK and US specific terms; links in this debate were always to non-specific pages concerned with regional differences in language, and never specifically stated that "season" should be banned from a UK article. Once this debate took hold, somebody against use of the word "season" inserted something to back up his argument, but I don't think this should stand as evidence. As far as I am concerned, the entire UK/US issue is perceived by a number of people within their own circumstances, but it is not adequately supported by evidence suitable for an encyclopedia. 92.40.88.108 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't ignore this. People are missing the point completely. The issue is really, when we use the word "series" many times within a paragraph (because the term means more things), and it comes across as sloppy, is it okay to use the word "season" once or twice to add variety? The anti-Season argument is more about preventing use of the word "season" for this purpose, whilst simultaneously offering no valid alternative. All we need is a single valid alternative if the word "season" is out of bounds. Please ensure that this is taken into the debate, because it has been presented above, as usual, as though people are trying to replace the word "series" with "season" wholesale, which nobody is. 81.158.236.156 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, because season is not a word generally used in the UK. Etron81 has the best idea, occasional substitution with the word "show" or "programme" would be better. magnius (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is used regularly in the UK, and language is not static in this way. The discussion above clearly shows that we can't just accept the "American usage" argument. 92.40.148.11 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a "season" of Peep Show and a "season" of Blackadder to everyone I know and we're all English. We're speaking a language that has evolved through centuries of influence and we use many many words with different origins all blended together. Good luck getting this through the thick-skulls governing this place though. You'd think we were trying to get a skyscraper built in the heart of Cambridge. Wait - is "skyscraper" an American word??? Maybe! Shudder! Somebody put me right please!! 77.44.32.248 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Series. Every video and DVD release ever has used the word "series" and the BBC use the word series on various websites. The only person who has ever used the word season is Doug Naylor in an interview, but that's hardly a reason to change over 20 years of the use of a word. Changing this page would have a knock on effect to every article about a British television show, so it's not really a matter for the people editing this page, but rather a wiki wide decision that would need to see a clear policy change. magnius (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Satisfactory evidence required that: 1) we're dealing with something that has remained static for 20 years (I presume you're arbitrarily picking up from the point when classic Doctor Who ended, which in the UK was comfortably referred to as "seasons" through its history: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/index_third.shtml), 2) we should be using this "20 year" cut-off point rather than, say, a 40 or 50 year one, and 3) this RFC is asking to "change over 20 years of the use of a word", rather than to simply include another complementary word on occasion when it seems appropriate to do so. Also, Doug Naylor was mentioned earlier because he represents as much a relevant source for Red Dwarf as the DVD covers and BBC website - he is not "the only person who has ever used the word season" in the UK ever, and you know this. 92.40.88.108 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment and suggestion in most places where "series" is used, it is referring to the individual series, rather than the programme as a whole - to avoid confusion in the few areas in which is is used to refer to both, might it not be a good idea to use "show" or "programme" to refer to the series as a whole? Etron81 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Series. Terminology should reflect the sources, in this case DVD covers and the BBC site. If the sources used the word "season" then it would be fair enough to use that term. As "season" and "series" are not strictly interchangeable terms, it cannot be justified to do so for prose style or text clarity reasons.—Ash (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Doug Naylor (co-creator and writer of Red Dwarf) consistently using the word "season" in all the DVD documentaries not count as "source"? If so, why? While the packaging and website don't use the word "season", this does not indicate that they are against it. 92.40.30.253 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See the comment from magnius in this RFC.—Ash (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not negate the point. For one, it's not "one interview" - it is every single interview with him on every official DVD released. Again this is perfectly valid information being deflected "because you said so" - the usual way that the status quo is maintained. Why do you assume that because the BBC website haven't used the word "season" so far that they are actually against its use? 92.40.128.20 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I made no such assumption.—Ash (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If we agree that the "source" are not explicitly against using the term, then we shouldn't be banning it. 92.40.68.68 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(Anon IP) Please refer to Wikipedia:Why create an account. You appear to be the same editor using shifting IP addresses. There is no way for other editors to tell. Consequently it is not sensible to have a connected discussion as this would be subject to confusion and potential misuse; particularly in the case of a RFC. At the moment it appears that all anonymous IP contributions to this RFC have been from the same editor.—Ash (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two of us now; I will register with an account as soon as I can and mark this comment and others as mine. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)For the record, the RfC I started was regarding whether to proper term for a group of Red Dwarf episodes made in the same production period should be Series or Season, as this was the basis of the above disagreement. This has since been changed by IP 81.158.236.156, to query whether we can use the word Season to avoid repition. Whilst I would have prefered this to be brought up earlier, there is still benefit for community attention on the point, and the US/UK difference may no longer be moot. Having said that, I agree with Etron81. I'd probably expand upon that to say that in situations where we are referring to a specific series (Series IV or the fourth series), we should use the word series. When referring to the "complete series", or the show as a whole, we should use the word "show". 81.*, do you have any other situations where this would not be acceptable? -- WORMMЯOW  13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it was raised as the predominant issue many times in the main (now locked) discussion/debate that led to this RfC. It's been mainly the anti-Season people who have been taking this as "let's just replace the word series with the word season," and arguing their position in response to that. Thanks for setting the RfC up, by the way. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case. Whether you intend to use "season" to replace all instances of "series", or just some of them, the reasons for not doing so are the same. Miremare 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break one

• Series. Even when 'season' used to avoid repetition, it is not clear that a 'season' is the same thing as a 'series'. Find another way round the repetition problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Series - series is the accepted British English term for what, in American English, is described as a season. This is the standard across television articles throughout Wikipedia, and there is no reason to adopt a different attitude for this article. Regarding the repartition issue, there are other ways around that. It is peculiar, and noteworthy, that the only (vocal) dissidents to this line of thought here are anon. editors. _TalkIslander 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous editors probably realise that this is a lost cause, and are just putting across their points for the sake of it - you'll get your way because you'll look at all the evidence and just keep things the way you want, because you're like that! 77.44.32.248 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, excuse my ignorance, then, but if the anon editors think this is a lost cause, and are "just putting their point across", why aren't there any registered users (of which there are currently around 10 million, of which at least 50,000 can be said to be active) who take on this point of view as well? _TalkIslander 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. And why aren't at least 25,000 people stating here that they agree with you? It's a mystery. 77.44.32.248 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, you've still failed to answer my question ;). All dissidents to the 'avoid using season' argument, in this RfC at least, are anon editors. Why? _TalkIslander 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I know the answer to why "all dissidents" are a certain way? I am an anonymous editor because I visited this talk page and saw this conversation and I'm not registered but decided to contribute anyway. Call me smart for realising you're the sort of person who'll dismiss my contributions (on the basis that you don't agree with them) whether I'm registered or not. 77.44.32.248 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I assure you that's not true. That aside, it is rare for anon IPs to contribute to the 'inner workings' of Wikipedia, thus is remains highly odd that everyone in this argument arguing for the use of the word 'season' is an anon IP. _TalkIslander 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Both - I don't follow this argument that the word "season" should be banned just because the word "series" exists. Use many words to refer to the same thing - don't be scared! The people who think this is a UK "trousers" v US "pants" issue are wrong, frankly. What's more this issue will keep recurring, and RFCs will keep being started, year after year, until both words are in use; eventually it'll be obvious to even the most conservative editors policing this article that the word "season", as synonymous with "series", is not limited to the barriers of the US. 77.44.32.248 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is a comparison between "trousers" and "pants" wrong then? An American and a Brit will understand both of these words, but you would only expect to see one of them used in an article written in either US or UK English. Just as with series/season, using both in the same article to mean the same thing is unecessary and potentially confusing. Also, I think you might be rather overestimating the support for "season", considering. I'm sure you can see Islander's point when he remarks that nobody in favour of "season" so far is a registered user. Indeed, only one of the IPs in this section has even edited Wikipedia apart from this page, and even he's at a public library. Not to mention that it wasn't even one of those users that started this RfC. And it's interesting to note that the solution to possible repetition pointed out by User:Etron81 and User:Worm_That_Turned has been completely ignored by the IPs, presumably because it doesn't involve the word "season"... Given all that, your suggestion of attritional RfC-starting seems unlikely and would only serve to further weaken what little credibility the "season" argument has. Miremare 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"And it's interesting to note that the solution to possible repetition pointed out by User:Etron81 and User:Worm_That_Turned has been completely ignored by the IPs, presumably because it doesn't involve the word "season"." It deals with repetition of the word "series" as long as that usage concerns its meaning "programme" or "show". We cannot use the word "programme" or "show" in instances of repetition when the word "series" is being used as per the meaning of "season". This is the problem that arises when a word has multiple meanings; the given solution partly works, but not entirely. In the meantime, we have yet to receive a reason to not use the word "season" beyond the contestable insistence that it is a US-centric word. Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't use "program" or "show" as a synonym of "series", which is why those words should be used for the show as a whole and "series" left for the individual series. If there is then over-repetition of any term then the article simply needs to be written better rather than resort to importing words from a different regional varity of English. Miremare 13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "program". I said "programme" - I am not trying to Americanise this article or any other article. 92.40.75.56 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The spelling of programme/program isn't the point I'm making, but the use of the word. Miremare 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a poorly written article ought to be rewritten, yes. But your argument that to use "season" is a "resort to importing words from a different regional variety of English" is what I argue is wrong, and what requires evidence beyond a few DVD covers and the rule that contrary evidence doesn't count. The question I keep asking is what do you consider the historical cut-off for allowing words to stay in our language. Why this 20 year limit mentioned above? And if we even go so far as to accept this, where is the evidence that language has stayed static during these two decades? Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We're using language as it is used, not defining it. Miremare 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that language is a certain way, and comments like "The only person who has ever used the word season is Doug Naylor in an interview, but that's hardly a reason to change over 20 years of the use of a word" have been used to support this usage. Why are we only going back 20 years and who says that the use of these relevant terms have remained unchanged within this 20 year period? Latter Day Fare (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably "20 years" was just shorthand for "a long time", I don't know. The reasons for the different terms are apparently explained in the Television season article, boiling down to the fact that US shows generally have many more episodes per season than UK shows have in a series, resulting in them taking an entire season of the year to broadcast, whereas the UK one would not. Miremare 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If we were to start using the word "pants" in this way we would have to explain each time that it was not referring to "underpants" but to "trousers" (because in the UK it would be an anomaly to use the word "pants" to mean "trousers"), whereas "season" here carries an identical meaning to one way that we use "series", more like the "truck/lorry" example given below. If "truck" is also banned from UK wikipedia articles then that is ridiculous too, frankly. Never before have I heard of keeping terminology down within an encyclopedia, in any circumstances. 92.40.112.162 (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said that people in the UK are quite capable of understanding that "pants" can mean "trousers", but wouldn't use the word to mean that themselves. The same is evidently true of TV shows made in the UK, which use "series". Miremare 13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "evidently true", but your opinion, based on the sources that you have picked to support your argument. There is absolutely nothing to justify banning the use of a perfectly valid word for an indeterminate length of time, simply because in your opinion our language isn't there yet. 92.40.75.56 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidently true to anyone who cares to look. See reply further down. Miremare 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to see patterns and evidence of any kind if you attend to specific phenomena a certain way - it does not make them more "evident" or "frequent" phenomena, other than to the eye of the beholder. You can see faces in furniture if you "care to look", as you call it. Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• series, per WP:ENGVAR which calls for consistency within articles. —Jeremy (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation." This does not concern individual words and this should not be extrapolated as such. i.e. it does not imply "we cannot use "truck" because it is inconsistent with a rule to always use "lorry"." Latter Day Fare (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break two

• Series per WP:ENGVAR. Although it is true that (especially nowadays) the word "season" is used in the UK, it is in origin an Americanism (the Doctor Who Programme Guide mentioned above was by Jean-Marc Lofficier, a French journalist based in the US). British users understand the word "truck" and may even use it sometimes, but that doesn't mean that we should use it interchangeably with "lorry" in UK-based articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I really would like to know where we are supposed to draw the line as far as commonly used words in our language are concerned, given that it has changed over centuries (in ways that we unquestioningly accept within wikipedia) and remains fluid today. And as pointed out above, how long will it be before words like "season"/"truck" are so obviously part of our language that they can be adopted within an encyclopedia? A century from now will it be okay to use the word "truck" interchangeably with "lorry"? If so what will have caused this? An RfC that concludes against the use of a term (essentially banning it for an indeterminate duration) is untenable indeed, in my view. Latter Day Fare (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The word "season" had usage in the UK before that Programme Guide and what few have noted is that it is the very word used in Red Dwarf: Back To Earth. It is a hypercorrection to regard "season" as just a US term. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • • This same observation was mentioned earlier in this discussion, but it was ignored on the basis that DVD covers and the BBC website are to be treated as "source" for the "correct" terminology, while DVD contents are an anomaly to be disregarded. Latter Day Fare (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That "season" began being applied to the original series of Dr Who at some point, and that Doug Naylor likes to use it, are very minor exceptions (especially Naylor) and don't represent the situation at large. Miremare 13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Evidence required that these are "very minor exceptions" and don't represent "the situation at large". They are evidence to support the opposing viewpoint, and some could argue that it's because they don't support your argument (not "the situation at large") that you are keen to throw them out wholesale. Naylor was chosen due to his relevance to this particular subject, and is not a lone example in this respect. 92.40.75.56 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Latter Day Fare (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Hardly a reliable source I know, but I can confirm that, as a Brit, I was not even aware that 'season' could be used to refer to a TV 'series', as you will see from my post above. It is quite hard to find reliable sources that state that a particular word is not used in a particular way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • The only thing remotely British in all of this is the insatiable urge of a few people to ban something they don't like. And I speak as a Brit myself. Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If you really require evidence that "season" and "series" are US and UK terms respectively, then simply go down to your local branch of HMV and browse the DVD section. Or for something a little quicker, here's the list of DVD's currently listed on Amazon's main page for TV DVDs[1] and the term each one uses: House (US), season. Scrubs (US), season. Chuck (US), season. 30 Rock (US), season. The Royle Family (UK), series. Lewis (UK), series. The Wire (US), season. Torchwood (UK), series. That's just the main section - look down the Bestsellers or Future Releases lists at the side, and you will see the pattern repeated. In fact search on the site for any TV programme, including, of course, Red Dwarf.[2] Miremare 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Evidence that a word is used in certain selected examples of your choice does not simultaneously demonstrate that these "sources" are against using another word that means the same thing. Latter Day Fare (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
              • They are not selected examples, they are the current crop of the front page of Amazon's TV DVD section, and nothing to do with me. I also challenged you to look up any that you might care to. This is a clear case of different usage in different national varieties of English, and that's what WP:ENGVAR is for. It requires consistent use of one variety within an article, therefore "series" is the correct term here. Miremare 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
                • So far WP:ENGVAR has been used to emphasise the importance of consistency of grammar within articles, which is not relevant. Could you link to the correct portion of that page please? Latter Day Fare (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • From ENGVAR: "This avoids articles being written in a variety that is inappropriate for the great majority of its readers. For example, Australians should not stumble over Americanisms in Australian Defence Force; Americans should not find exclusively British terms in American Civil War." The Oxford English Dictionary only lists this sense of season as part of its June 2007 draft additions. They state: "Broadcasting (chiefly N. Amer.). A single series of a television or radio programme." As a chiefly N. American term it should not be used in an article about a chiefly British subject.—Jeremy (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • Thank you. The OED reference was the kind of information on your side that I was looking for. Can the expressions "exclusively American terms" and "chiefly N. American" use be conflated as you suggest? I am not sure. And it would be good to have some consensus as to whether the OED definition places the word "season" within what wikipedia rules would call an "Americanism". Latter Day Fare (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
                • The "selected examples" bit concerns the fact that you have determined that only DVD covers are relevant sources of information for this study (not their contents), and that certain aspects of the BBC website are to be used as source, excluding the classic Doctor Who section which uses "season". As observed by Timrollpickering in the discussion that preceded this RfC, "the usage of a term on a BBC website reflects the usage of the people who wrote it and edited it and almost never constitutes an "assertion of Papal infallibility" that is meant to be the definitive answer. Unfortunately the charged nature of many fan and Wiki debates is such that any corporate usage often gets declared as "official-usage-therefore-we-win-the-end" by one side of the argument." It's true, isn't it? Latter Day Fare (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • DVD covers are just an example - I'm not citing corporate usage as a reason to exclude "season", but in this case corporate usage and common usage happen to coincide. Miremare 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • I personally do not agree with the classic Doctor Who section being used as decent example. Due to the sheer numbers of episodes, the fact that serials can run over many episodes, they can be grouped by age, by doctor, by serial, by companion, by enemy and everything and anything else in between, it's not surprising that confusion can occur. User:Miremare's point regarding amazon titles is a valid one, the dvd covers are what the programmes call themselves and I think you'll find it difficult to discover a British set of episodes which labels itself season.
                    • I think the discussion has moved on now, but nevertheless I don't think that "confusion" can be accepted as the reason for the word "season" being historically used for classic Doctor Who. Latter Day Fare (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The point made above regarding N. American TV scheduling is also a good one. Sets of episodes are in groups of 22-26, and there are specific things that happen in the mid season breaks. British sets of episodes are groups of 6-8, sometimes they are on twice a year, in both spring and autumn. I don't deny that the word season has come into British lexicon, at least anecdotally in my experience, it's regarding American television shows.

Having said all that, the word series occurs 178 times in the article (including sources or well over 100 without). I don't think that adding the word Season in over and over again instead is going to help this problem. I suggest someone who has some time takes the word series out when referring to the programme as a whole. That'd be a start. We then need to look at re-writing the other parts of the article to reduce this excessive number to a less excessive one. -- WORMMЯOW  12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ship name

Is it worth mentioning that the name Red Dwarf as written on the ship appears in both English and Esperanto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears in both languages where? Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In close ups of the ship as it passes the camera, the name is shown in English and Esperanto. Furthermore, within the series, Esperanto is referred to in passing on rare occassions. However, does the name being Esperanto warrent a mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No because the name "Red Dwarf" does not appear on the outside of the ship in both languages. Latter Day Fare (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen "Red Dwarf" written on the ship in anything other than English. magnius (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The signs on the interior walls of the ship are in two languages - the infamous "Level / Nivelo" labels. I have never seen esperanto the ship's exterior. ADDENDUM: I've watched the originals on VHS, so it's possible that it's part of the CGI in the "special editions." Xsmasher (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be easy to solve. If someone can provide a reference for where "ruĝa nana" or "ruĝa nano" appears by giving a series number, an episode number and approximate minute and second position then it will be verifiable by just viewing the DVD playback. Note: My googlefoo lead me to this Esperanto-English converter, I hope the translation to "ruĝa nana" or "ruĝa nano" is correct. HumphreyW (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no moment in any Red Dwarf episode when the ship's name suddenly appears in anything other than English on the outside of the ship. End of discussion. Latter Day Fare (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"and gained a cult following"

Is this about suggesting the show has worth? Why is this qualifier here? Andrew Ellard (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove it. 79.74.199.148 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a sourced fact, keep it. magnius (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What, somebody on a blog, review or article said the words "the show has fans" and it's therefore a sourced fact? Absurd. This is an example of biased people pushing an agenda. 79.74.199.148 (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or rather, if you look at the source, you'll see it's the BBC Press Office, a reliable source. And also a cult following doesn't just mean "fans", it means a group of fans highly dedicated to the area... All seems reasonable to me -- WORMMЯOW  09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To somebody who is not pushing a biased agenda, it is arbitrary and has only been added to "toot" the show's value. You could also use it as "source" for saying that Red Dwarf was 'one of the most consistently requested series for release on DVD', if you wanted. And many other things. But what would be the value of doing this? What does such "tooting" bring to an article of this nature? 79.74.199.148 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

whats wrong with just saying something is good in this way?never been a prob before. 92.40.104.97 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"whats wrong with just saying something is good in this way?" Because this is an encyclopedia and not a fan forum. As somebody above says, you could use the same source to say that Red Dwarf was the most consistently requested series for release on DVD. It's not an appropriately unbiased source; the "cult following" point is neither necessary, nor adequately sourced as it is. Remove it or back it up properly (I'd argue for the former as it's obviously a fan who wants to keep it there. And we know that Red Dwarf fandom is often without perspective!). Trailerthroat (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article needs shortening

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

As a guide, check out these other articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_and_Gromit - Just as popular as Red Dwarf if not more so. Links to full articles on each of the films etc, but does not expand upon them in the main article itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_of_delights - Manages to list the differences between book and television adaptations and yet remains minimal in length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Bonzo - short and sweet article, contains all that is necessary and nothing more. Not saying we should get this short, but it's a brevity to aim for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundercats - Far more episodes produced, but resists the urge to indulge in providing every last detail about each one!

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

4 Themes

5 Hallmarks

6 Reception and achievements

6.1 Mixed reactions

6.2 Achievements

7.3 Magazine

7.6 Roleplaying game

7.7 Red Dwarf Night

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay good. Looks like we have a consensus - I'll go ahead and add the stub articles, and shorten this article when I have more time during the Christmas hols. SaveBoggins (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree this article is too long, but since it's a much more important article than the crufty sub articles, I worried about them first (then I got busy in the real world, and have ignored everything wiki for a few months). If you fancy clearing it out, I wouldn't object! -- WORMMЯOW  13:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Theme "tun"

I read something somewhere a couple of years ago about the Red Dwarf theme tune being based on the melodic structure of one from another children's show. I thought I'd find it in the wiki article but no luck, and a google search hasn't led anywhere useful yet. Can anybody help me get to the bottom of this? Sebastian Toothbury Trous' (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the opening or closing theme? If there's anything in it, I'm sure it'll be mentioned on the documentary about the theme/s on the series V or VI (or thereabouts) DVD. I'll take a look if I can find the thing. Miremare 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay... The documentary I was thinking of was "Howard Goodall: Settling the Score", on the Series VI DVD. He doesn't mention basing either theme on one from another show. Not absolute proof, but I'm sure he would have mentioned it had it been the case. Miremare 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tro'st grun'ting?

Is this considered canon? Trailerthroat (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something about Red Dwarf fans would be good

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

It would need to be reliably sourced. How about [Victor, Peter (16 November 1995). "'Mad boffin' jailed over computer virus havoc". The Independent.] as a source? This would produce an accurate description of "criminal mad boffin" as the kind of audience notable for enjoying Red Dwarf.—Ash (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hmm. I think it's "I couldn't care less"/"I could care less" which he claims is justifiable because other people do it. I've never heard "I couldn't care more", but you could be talking about someone else I guess. In any case it's more a case of being stubborn, I think, rather than purely idiotic. Rather than correcting himself so that he's using language the way it should be used, he forms a flimsy argument to justify what are basically errors. I doubt very much that there's a direct correlation between doing that and liking series 8 of Red Dwarf though. Other than the fact that both "groups" would be tending to block out evidence in order to retain an untenable position. SaveBoggins (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I agree that needing a laughter track is pretty annoying, especially when the loudness of those fans, if heard by GNP, might actually cause a return of whooping audiences and gurning performances, after the progress made by the more nuanced and cinematic BTE. But again I don't know what could be said about this in the article, because not all fans of the show are like this - just the loudest and stupidest ones. SaveBoggins (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, but there's a big difference between series 8 and earlier series with a live audience. Series 8 has a totally different performance style; the actors are playing up to a crowd that's now whooping because they're so pleased to have the opportunity to be seeing Red Dwarf. It's a quality that doesn't carry well onto the television screen, and stands up even less well over time. Unfortunately I think now that there is a generation of younger people for whom that IS "classic Dwarf". For me it's a distraction, but for them it's the correct aesthetic for the programme; it's what they want to hear an audience doing when they watch it on TV, and they want to see the actors chumping about, lapping up their responses. I would much rather Red Dwarf have the confidence to grow up and leave these people behind. It would be better from a science fiction perspective for the comedy to progress with the emotional maturity shown in the specials, rather than just bring in the kind of live audience who want the programme to be all about capturing their sycophantic appreciation, whether it's in the laughter track or in the way the actors respond to them. Harvey Manfrensengen (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Between 2003 and 2008, a number of Red Dwarf fans discovered food. Why is this fact not detailed in this article (or the food article, for that matter)? Simon Perkins (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is this for it: http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2467/garbargepailkidsaspx.jpg Simon Perkins (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Smart :-D Harvey Manfrensengen (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)