Wikipedia

Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 4

< Talk:Red Dwarf
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Redcypherdawn in topic Timeframe of first episode listed is incorrect
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Suggestion for Alteration of article name

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

While we have got a notice at the top of the article that states the following - "This article is about the British comedy franchise. For the eponymous spaceship, see Red Dwarf (spaceship). For the type of star, see Red dwarf." - I like to suggest that we alter the article's name, for the purpose of ensuring that it differentiates from the other terminology associated to it. The reason for this suggestion is that, although the article on the tv show and the article on a type of star are slightly different, it is only on the aspect of one letter (the "d" for this article is upper case, while its lower case in the other). My suggestion is to alter the heading for this article by stating it as "Red Dwarf (TV Series)". This would be much better, and ensure a clearer method of searching for it by other users.

Please vote below on what you think to this suggestion - if we get a general consensus that agrees to this alteration, then it should be implemented as soon as possible. GUtt01 (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Cybersub (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Etron81 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Pastychomper (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - As per WP:PRIMARY the TV show is clearly the primary topic. Google results are massively skewed towards the programme rather than the star. Wiki page statistics also support the TV show being primary:

I suggest instead that the star is renamed to "Red dwarf (stellar object)" - or similar. I appreciate that this naming convention is not done for other stars such as Blue straggler or Brown dwarf - but neither of those share their name with a wildly popular and successful TV show. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That might be partly recentism as the figures for both sites are likely to have been skewed now that Series XII has just started showing (that's why I'm here, regardless of my being a long-time fan). To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if the TV series still won without that boost, but I suspect it would be closer. I'm still in favour of renaming this page, as the show was named after the star (though I don't know if that argument carries any weight on WP), but would go with renaming the star page as an alternative. Pastychomper (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Let me point out one thing here. Which bears the name of "Red Dwarf" first - the TV Show, or the star type? If we do have to rename the article on the star, the suggestion of "Red dwarf (stellar object)", would certainly get my approval. But I digress... We need to consider which is more notable - which was named "Red Dwarf" first, or following the criteria of WP:PRIMARY. GUtt01 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red Dwarf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red Dwarf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

British or English?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With regard to this reversion - an additional clue is in the name: The BBC, aka the British Broadcasting Corporation... Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to the film Moon (2009)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Whilst watching the film Moon (2009, starring Sam Rockwell), I found several parts of the set reminded me of Red Dwarf. It turns out the this isn't simply a similarity; Moon re-used sets from an abandoned Red Dwarf movie according to The Guardian's article here. I have noted that in the Production section of the Moon article. What's more, both were filmed at Shepperton Studios around the same time.

The Red Dwarf set in the revived series, especially the recessed bunks of the sleeping quarters, are possibly identical to the sleeping quarters in Moon, with the only exception being that the upper bunk is removed in Moon (as the base in Moon was designed to have only one crew member). The corridors, featuring fans behind metal struts, are also in both the revived Dwarf series, and in the corridor of the "secret room" in Moon.

Can anyone find a reliable source that notes that the revived Red Dwarf series re-used the Moon set (which itself reused the set from the abandoned Red Dwarf movie)? That would be quite a provenance.

There are a few other similarities, such as the protagonist of Moon's deteriorating health, mind and clothing, making him appear more and more similar, both in appearance and manner, to Lister, as the film progresses. Towards the end of the film, Sam wanders around in a black jacket covered in logos, eating junk and throwing up. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A.A. advert

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am not sure this is worthy of mention in the article, but the characters have, as of 2019, appeared in an advertisement for the A.A.. Vorbee (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC) OK - I see this is now mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong editorial point of view in the Overview

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

The article has a really strong POV that Red Dwarf isn't 'really' science fiction. from the article:

"Despite the pastiche of science fiction used as a backdrop, Red Dwarf is primarily a character-driven comedy, with science fiction elements used as complementary plot devices."

It so happens that I don't agree with this opinion... my view is that Red Dwarf is bona fide science fiction. But what am I supposed to do about that: start an edit war on a pre-existing wikipedia page? Is that how this works - the person who gets in first on a page gets their personal opinions injected as fact? No, the better solution is for the wikipedia page to not present opinion dressed up as fact, and drop the editorialising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.99.197 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It should go.RJ4 (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This is fair enough. I've been bold and removed the sentence "Despite the pastiche of science fiction used as a backdrop, Red Dwarf is primarily a character-driven comedy, with science fiction elements used as complementary plot devices". The claim isn't supported by the Concept and commission section, which makes heavy mention of the science fiction origin, and only passing comment about the "british comedy". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war either, but I don't think that a few hours notice is adequate for such an editorial decision. If you think that the article contains a strong POV, the correct response is to add the appropriate banner and allow adequate time for interested parties to come to a consensus.
For what it's worth, the entire original premise of the show is that two people who don't get along, for reasons not completely within their control, are forced to interact with each other within a confined space. This is such a common theme in character-driven plots and shows it could be called a hackneyed cliché. Arguing the show is primarily about the science fiction is like arguing The Breakfast Club is primarily about detention. I think the original wording was spot on. No one is saying that character-driven shows can not also be bona fide science fiction. Furthermore I'd say that it was not a POV but a self-evident fact. --Alvint69 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I've made some changes which will hopefully be acceptable to all interested parties until a consensus can be reached. --Alvint69 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why we should make allowances for thanksgiving? What relevance does that have to editing Red Dwarf? Anyway, my point and reason for editing is that science fiction is backed up in the article, yet the odd-couple claim is not. If you can find sources to support this - especially those that support the claim that RD is primarily an odd-couple comedy and science fiction second, then I'll have no problem with the statement staying - but at the moment it's not supported by the rest of the article or sources. If it's "a self-evident fact" you should have no difficulty in finding sources to corroborate your opinion. The very first sentence in the lede says "Red Dwarf is a British science fiction comedy franchise" - the emphasis is on science fiction and comedy in general, not what type of comedy it entails. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Odd Couple claim was not the part that was removed or proposed to be removed; I just included it in that section when I reorganized the page because it logically flowed from the other content. However, I would argue that the parallels to The Odd Couple are also self-evident. I'll remove the Thanksgiving part since it was just flourish and not relevant to my point. --Alvint69 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why we should make allowances for thanksgiving? What relevance does that have to editing Red Dwarf? - I don't think Thanksgiving was the point, it was more about the quick removal without giving others the chance to comment. Between the time the IP started this discussion and when the content was removed was a mere 3 hours. The disputed sentence has been in the article for a very long time and has undergone much editing. For example, looking through the article history, "pastiche" was added way back on 24 May 2005 (13.5 years ago) with this edit. Given that it hasn't been removed in all that time, it seems to have a general community consensus so a bit more discussion is really required. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and in my defence - there were three editors who felt that removal was warranted, and I specifically said "I've been bold..." with the implication that should it be followed by R, I would be quite happy to D. It's also only now become a disputed sentence - prior to that it was simply a phrase in the article that is (was) subject to the same critique as every other statement made.

I maintain my previous standpoint - it is science fiction comedy, and this claim is supported by the article itself, whereas the claim that it is a character driven comedy is not. I'm willing to concede that character driven comedy has a part to play - because every comedy relies upon characters within, be they human, computer, alien or whatever - but to say that the focus is on character, rather than science fiction requires a source. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I dispute the implied premise that this argument is based on--that a show can't be both sci-fi and character driven at the same time. Of course it can, and virtually all modern shows or plots are character driven to some degree, regardless of genre. I also think it's self-evident that this show is higher on the character driven scale than most. The obvious example is the progression of the Rimmer character, which if the show weren't as character driven as it was would likely have just devolved into a one-dimensional foil similar to the TV version of Frank Burns. --Alvint69 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Nah, the argument is not that the show is or isn't character driven - the argument is whether it is primarily a character driven comedy, or a science fiction comedy. The disputed text makes the claim that it is primarily a character comedy, and science fiction is secondary and incidental:
"Despite the pastiche of science fiction used as a backdrop, Red Dwarf is primarily a character-driven comedy, with science fiction elements used as complementary plot devices."
I maintain that this is not correct, and that while I agree it has character driven comedy - it is primarily a science fiction comedy show. Again, I believe that the current article backs up this claim, stating that RD has always had its roots in science fiction, albeit science fiction comedy. Again, if you think otherwise all you have to do is source it.
In my corner I have the Concept & commission section, which is sourced and states "influences came from films and television programmes such as Star Trek (1966), Silent Running (1972), Alien (1979), Dark Star (1974) and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981)", "it was rejected on fears that a science fiction sitcom would not be popular", and of course the prototype for RD; Dave Hollins: Space Cadet Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
How about toning down the wording? How does everyone feel about rewording that sentence to, "Red Dwarf is a character-driven comedy with a pastiche of science fiction used as a backdrop, and with science fiction elements also used as complementary plot devices."? --Alvint69 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
That is not toning down at all. In fact it's even worse, because it now removes "primarily" and instead states categorically that RD "is a character-driven comedy" when that is not the case. If it is to be reworded - which I don't personally like, and I think it should simply be removed - then it should be along the lines of "Red Dwarf is a science fiction comedy using character driven situations in a pastiche of sci-fi shows such as Star Trek and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, the assertion that RD is not a character-driven comedy is simply not true, and again the assertion reflects the belief that this is an "either-or" situation, which it is not. I guess we're just not going to agree on this.
As previously mentioned, this sentence has survived over a decade of revisions and that strongly implies most people believe it to be accurate enough. How about we leave the banner on the page for time being and allow others to have their say? --Alvint69 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I stepped away for a couple of days for exactly that. However, if we allow others to have some input, you would also do well to use the time to find sources that support your viewpoint, which apart from saying "it's not true" you haven't done. The disputed claim is that RD is primarily character driven comedy, not primarily science fiction comedy. This is my bone of contention.
I agree that it is character driven comedy, but that is not what is being contested. What is being contested is the claim that it is primarily character driven comedy, and the science fiction elements are secondary to that. That is what the current statement says, and I refute that, backed up by the rest of the article which makes a big deal of the science fiction roots. There are already sources in the article that claim it to be science fiction comedy, so I'm ok there.
It's all well and good to say that the claim has been in the article for years, but so what? All that means is that it's not been challenged in that time. Now it has. Now you need to provide sources - as stated in the template you added. If you can't provide a source, then it's not a valid claim and can be removed.
There is no dispute over whether RD is either/or - the dispute is over whether it is primarily science fiction or character. I have provided sources (that are already in use in the article) that say RD has always been science fiction, is described in the media as science fiction, and has it's genesis in science fiction. Yes, it has character driven comedy, and (like any other comedy show, if we're honest) couldn't exist without character interaction, but it is primarily a science fiction show, and the text should state this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There are only two choices here; a show/movie/book/whatever is either plot-driven or character-driven (more precisely, it's a sliding scale between the two). This the the long-accepted nomenclature/terminology/taxonomy that has evolved to discuss these things. When we say here that RD is primarily character-driven, it means that it is more character-driven than plot-driven. Like all other genres, sci-fi is on the spectrum between completely plot-driven and completely character-driven. Much if not most of sci-fi is mostly plot-driven, but this show is mostly character-driven. Again, these are the only two choices. Asking people to find a source proving that something is not in a category you made up that currently doesn't exist is ridiculous. Since this wording is the current status quo, the onus is on *you* to cite a preponderance of credible sources that claim that RD is specifically not one of the two accepted categories, but is actually a third category that doesn't yet exist.
If you feel that there needs to be a third, separate category for fiction (I guess "sci-fi driven" or maybe more generally "environment-driven"), this is obviously not the appropriate forum for that. Wikipedia uses the accepted existing nomenclature to describe things. Do do otherwise would be unnecessarily confusing.
If you need help deciding between character-driven and plot-driven (the only two choices here), just do a Google search for "character-driven vs plot-driven". You will find many, many articles to help you on this. --Alvint69 (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not making up any kind of genre at all. Nor am I arguing over whether RD is plot driven or character driven. I'm discussing the current statement that declares the science fiction aspect to be secondary to it being a character driven sitcom. Why are you constantly avoiding this, despite me being very clear about it in each edit I make? I agree that RD is character driven, but I am also saying that regardless of being character or plot driven, the scenarios encountered are firmly rooted in science fiction comedy and this should come first in a description.
Although not my preferred option, as compromise I would have no bones about reversing the order to say that RD is a science fiction comedy that uses character driven scenarios - which funnily enough is exactly what I suggested here on 28/11: "Red Dwarf is a science fiction comedy using character driven situations in a pastiche of sci-fi shows such as Star Trek and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here's the deal: It's my belief (from both your comments and actions) that you were originally unaware of what was meant by "character-driven", and tried infer its meaning from the context of the sentence in question. Unfortunately, the sentence did not provide sufficient cues and you incorrectly inferred that a story being character-driven was in opposition to it being sci-fi. This incorrect assumption was the basis of your original disagreement with the sentence. Now, I believe you are continuing this debate simply because you don't want to be seen as wrong. The reason I believe this as because your arguments have ranged from the completely irrelevant and likely intended to muddy the waters (taking issue with my Thanksgiving comment and your comments about the Odd Couple comparison) to the wildly inconsistent. Please, stop wasting people's time with this. --Alvint69 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You are partially correct. The sentence was originally unclear, and made a broad statement that Red Dwarf is only a science fiction show in order to provide a scenario for a character driven comedy. I believed this to be incorrect, as it placed lesser importance on the fact that RD has always been intended to be a science fiction comedy. If by attempting to infer meaning from the context of the statement I arrived at the incorrect conclusion, then surely that only confirms that the sentence is in need of attention?

You have agreed that the thanksgiving term was irrelevant - so struck it from the conversation. You brought this element of conversation up, not me.

I am continuing this debate because I believe that RD should be primarily described as science fiction comedy, not as character comedy. Thrice now I have suggested a compromise: "Red Dwarf is a science fiction comedy using character driven situations in a pastiche of sci-fi shows such as Star Trek and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

Ironically, you could also be seen to be in the same position: You are also refusing to admit you are wrong. Witness your refusal to find sources that describe RD as a character comedy, rather than a science fiction comedy. I have accepted that character driven comedy is a part of RD, but my issue is that it is not the primary description, something that I have been clear about from my very first post.

I'll hold my hand up an accept that the odd couple term was incorrect, and it should have stated "character driven comedy", but given that odd couple comedy is basic character driven comedy, and that the analogy is "self evident" I don't see why that causes you so much distress.

What is your opinion on the compromise statement? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Coming into this late, but I will start by saying: you cannot justify something because it is "self-evident", WP policy is clear on that. However, here are some reliable sources to it being character driven, though "primarily character driven" is perhaps not the best phrase:
"it had both the innate melancholy and odd-couple dynamic central to all great sitcoms", Gabriel Tate, The Guardian, 2017.
"Red Dwarf X is far more in the spirit of the very early days – a four-hand character sitcom that just happens to be set in space." Dan Martin, The Guardian, 2012. That article even quotes Craig Charles: "This (Series X) is Red Dwarf coming back to what it does best, which is making a situation comedy."
I'll try to get around to getting that into the article. Adpete (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
In the Dave_(TV_channel) documentary series, an interviewee describes the first three years as a domestic comedy.
Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing too picky?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When using "Num_Seasons" I kept getting an error I couldn't figure out, turns out Wikipedia doesn't like capital letters, and only accepted it when I put it as "num_seasons" trying to get it to work... Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit overly particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheuerman2 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of lower case is common practice in infoboxes and and sticking with just one case provides consistency. Given that every other field is in lowercase it should have been obvious that lowercase is required and it's also specified in the instructions so it shouldn't be an issue. Why were you trying to use num_seasons in this article when it already uses num_series? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
UK v USA
show v series
series v seasons
Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving the page/Adding "sitcom"

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The page has been moved so that now "(sitcom)" is included at the end. This has been done to try and stop confusion between the TV show, and the type of star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetkid32 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've undone this well-intentioned rename. There have been several previous threads about that, and a previous WP:RM to include a disambiguation token which did not find consensus to do so (/Archive 3#Requested move). That was years ago, so consensus could change...feel free to start a new discussion. Technically, the move was also flawed in that it did not move all the archives (just something to keep in mind for any future moves here or elsewhere). DMacks (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Any moves should be made in acoordance with WP:NCTV and "(sitcom)" is not appropriate disambiguation for this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Timeframe of first episode listed is incorrect

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Plot "In the first episode, set sometime in the late 22nd century". In S2 E4, Stasis Leak, a full date and time clock is shown. It reads "Wednesday 2 March 2077 08:33". Lister sees this clock and notes that it is 3 weeks before the radiation leak that kills the crew. Edit I would suggest is changing "late 22nd century" to early. Redcypherdawn (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Err meant edit it to late 21st Century from late 22nd. Redcypherdawn (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Dwarf/Archive_4&oldid=1166380471"